XML 79 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.2.0.727

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
(7) | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Vessel and Other Commitments The table below summarizes the company’s various vessel commitments to acquire and construct new vessels, by vessel type, as of June 30, 2015:
(In thousands, except vessel count) |  | Number of Vessels |  |  | Total Cost |  |  |  | Invested Through 6/30/15 |  |  |  | Remaining Balance 6/30/15 |
Vessels under construction: |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Deepwater PSVs |  | 13 |  | $ | 439,109 |  |  |  | 227,291 |  |  |  | 211,818 |
Towing-supply vessels |  | 3 |  |  | 51,016 |  |  |  | 39,533 |  |  |  | 11,483 |
Total vessel commitments |  | 16 |  | $ | 490,125 |  |  |  | 266,824 |  |  |  | 223,301 |
The total cost of the various vessel new-build commitments includes contract costs and other incidental costs. The company has vessels under construction at a number of different shipyards around the world. The deepwater PSVs under construction range between 4,200 and 6,000 deadweight tons (DWT) of cargo capacity while the towing-supply vessels under construction are vessels that have 7,145 brake horsepower (BHP). The new-build vessels began to deliver in July 2015, with delivery of the final new-build vessel expected in April 2017. The company has successfully replaced the vast majority of the older vessels in its fleet with fewer, larger and more efficient vessels that have a more extensive range of capabilities. These efforts are expected to continue through the delivery of the remaining 16 vessels currently under construction, with the company anticipating that it will use some portion of its future operating cash flows and existing borrowing capacity as well as possible new borrowings or lease finance arrangements in order to fund current and future commitments in connection with the completion of the fleet renewal and modernization program. In April 2015, the company notified an international shipyard, which at the time was constructing six 7,145 BHP towing-supply-class vessels, that it was terminating the first three of the six towing-supply vessels as a result of late delivery and requested the return of $36.1 million in aggregate installment payments together with interest on these installments, or all but approximately $0.8 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through March 31, 2015. There was an aggregate $12.7 million in estimated remaining costs to be incurred on these three vessels at the time of the termination. In May 2015, the company made a demand on the Bank of China refundment guarantees that secure the return of these installments. In June 2015, the company entered into settlement agreements with the shipyard that provided for a return of the $36.1 million in aggregate installment payments, termination of the company’s obligation to pay any future amounts on these vessels, and the application of the accrued interest owing on the returned installments ($3.5 million) to offset future installment obligations on other vessels at this shipyard. The interest “credit” is not secured by Bank of China refundment guarantees. The shipyard returned $24.2 million in June 2015, and $12 million in July 2015. The company has withdrawn its demands against the Bank of China refundment guarantees with respect to these three vessels. The company recorded an impairment charge of $0.8 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 to write off the amounts not recoverable from the shipyard. In April 2015, the company entered into negotiations with an international shipyard constructing two 275-foot deepwater PSVs to resolve issues associated with the late delivery of these vessels. In May 2015, the company settled these issues with the shipyard. Under the terms of the settlement, the company can elect to take delivery of one or both completed vessels at any time prior to June 30, 2016. That date is subject to two six month extension periods, each extension requiring the mutual consent of the company and shipyard. If the company does not elect to take delivery of one or both vessels prior to June 30, 2016 (as that date may be extended), (a) the company is entitled to receive the return of $5.4 million in aggregate installment payments per vessel together with interest on these installments (or all but approximately $1 million of the company’s carrying value of the accumulated costs per vessel through March 31, 2015) and (b) the company will be relieved of the obligation to pay to the shipyard the $21.7 million remaining payment per vessel. The shipyard’s obligation to return the $5.4 million (plus interest) per vessel if the company elects not to take delivery of one or both vessels is secured by Bank of China refundment guarantees. These two vessels are not included in the preceding table of vessel commitments as of June 30, 2015. The company is experiencing substantial delay with one fast supply boat under construction in Brazil that was originally scheduled to be delivered in September 2009. On April 5, 2011, pursuant to the vessel construction contract, the company sent the subject shipyard a letter initiating arbitration in order to resolve disputes of such matters as the shipyard’s failure to achieve payment milestones, its failure to follow the construction schedule, and its failure to timely deliver the vessel. The company has suspended construction on the vessel and both parties continue to pursue that arbitration. The company has third party credit support in the form of insurance coverage for 90% of the progress payments made on this vessel, or all but approximately $2.4 million of the carrying value of the accumulated costs through June 30, 2015. During the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the company recorded an impairment charge of $2.4 million (representing amounts not covered by insurance) and reclassified the remaining $5.6 million from construction in progress to other non-current assets. This vessel is not included in the preceding table of vessel commitments as of June 30, 2015. The company generally requires shipyards to provide third party credit support in the event that vessels are not completed and delivered timely and in accordance with the terms of the shipbuilding contracts. That third party credit support typically guarantees the return of amounts paid by the company and generally takes the form of refundment guarantees or standby letters of credit issued by major financial institutions generally located in the country of the shipyard. While the company seeks to minimize its shipyard credit risk by requiring these instruments, the ultimate return of amounts paid by the company in the event of shipyard default is still subject to the creditworthiness of the shipyard and the provider of the credit support, as well as the company’s ability to pursue successfully legal action to compel payment of these instruments. When third party credit support that is acceptable to the company is not available or cost effective, the company endeavors to limit its credit risk by minimizing pre-delivery payments and through other contract terms with the shipyard. Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund On July 15, 2013, a subsidiary of the company was placed into administration in the United Kingdom. Joint administrators were appointed to administer and distribute the subsidiary’s assets to the subsidiary’s creditors. The vessels owned by the subsidiary had become aged and were no longer economical to operate, which has caused the subsidiary’s main business to decline in recent years. Only one vessel generated revenue as of the date of the administration. As part of the administration, the company agreed to acquire seven vessels from the subsidiary (in exchange for cash) and to waive certain intercompany claims. The purchase price valuation for the vessels, all but one of which were stacked, was based on independent, third party appraisals of the vessels. The company previously reported that a subsidiary of the company is a participating employer in an industry-wide multi-employer retirement fund in the United Kingdom, known as the Merchant Navy Officers Pension Fund (MNOPF). The subsidiary that participates in the MNOPF is the entity that was placed into administration in the U.K. The MNOPF is that subsidiary’s largest creditor, and has claimed as an unsecured creditor in the administration. The company believed that the administration was in the best interests of the subsidiary and its principal stakeholders, including the MNOPF. The MNOPF indicated that it did not object to the insolvency process and that, aside from asserting its claim in the subsidiary’s administration and based on the company’s representations of the financial status and other relevant aspects of the subsidiary, the MNOPF will not pursue the subsidiary in connection with any amounts due or which may become due to the MNOPF. In December 2013, the administration was converted to a liquidation. That conversion allowed for an interim cash liquidation distribution to be made to the MNOPF. The conversion is not expected to have any impact on the company and the liquidation is expected to be completed in calendar 2015. The company believes that the liquidation will resolve the subsidiary’s participation in the MNOPF. The company also believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Sonatide Joint Venture As previously reported, in November 2013, a subsidiary of the company and its joint venture partner in Angola, Sonangol Holdings Lda. (“Sonangol”), executed a new joint venture agreement for their joint venture, Sonatide. The new joint venture agreement is currently effective and will expire, unless extended, two years after a new Angolan entity, which is intended to be one of the Sonatide group of companies, has been incorporated. The Angolan entity is expected to be incorporated by late 2015 after certain Angolan regulatory approvals have been obtained. The challenges for the company to successfully operate in Angola remain significant. As the company has previously reported, on July 1, 2013, additional elements of new legislation (the “forex law”) became effective that generally require oil companies that engage in exploration and production activities offshore Angola through governmental concessions to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents in Angolan kwanzas that are initially deposited into an Angolan bank account. The forex law also imposes documentation and other requirements on service companies such as Sonatide in order to effect payments that are denominated in currencies other than Angolan kwanzas. The forex law has resulted in substantial customer payments being made to Sonatide in Angolan kwanzas. A cumbersome payment process has imposed a burden on Tidewater’s management of its cash and liquidity, because the conversion of Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the funds has resulted in payment delays, additional operating costs and, through the company’s 49% ownership of Sonatide, foreign exchange losses. The payment process exposes the company to further risk of currency devaluation prior to Sonatide’s conversion of Angolan kwanza-denominated bank deposits to U.S. dollars and potentially additional taxes. In response to the new forex law, Tidewater and Sonangol negotiated and signed an agreement that is set to expire, unless extended, in November 2015 (the “consortium agreement”) that is intended to allow the Sonatide joint venture to enter into contracts with customers that allocate billings for services provided by Sonatide between (i) billings for local services that are provided by a foreign exchange resident (that must be paid in Angolan kwanzas), and (ii) billings for services provided by offshore residents (that can be paid in U.S. dollars). Sonatide successfully converted select customer contracts to this split billing arrangement during the quarters ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015. The company is unable to determine the impact that an inability to extend the consortium agreement would have on the existing split billing arrangements, and the ability to enter into new split billing arrangements. In addition, it is not clear if this type of contracting will be available to Sonatide over the longer term. In November 2014, the National Bank of Angola issued new regulations controlling the sale of foreign currency. These regulations generally require oil companies to channel any U.S. dollar sales they choose to make through the National Bank of Angola to buy Angolan kwanzas that are required to be used to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange resident oilfield service companies. These foreign exchange resident oilfield services companies, in turn, generally have a need to source U.S. dollars in order to pay for goods and services provided offshore. The regulations continue to permit tripartite agreements among oil companies, commercial banks and service companies that provide for the sale of U.S. dollars by an oil company to a commercial bank in exchange for Angolan kwanzas. These same U.S. dollars are then sold onward by the commercial bank to the service company. The implementing regulations do, however, place constraints on those tripartite agreements that did not previously exist, and the period of time that the tripartite agreements will be allowed remains uncertain. If tripartite agreements or similar arrangements are not available to service companies in Angola that have a need for U.S. dollars, then such service companies will be required to source U.S. dollars exclusively through the National Bank of Angola. Sonatide has had some success to date in negotiating tripartite agreements and it continues to work with customers, commercial banks and the National Bank of Angola in regards to utilizing these arrangements. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $338 million from its Angola operations, which is slightly less than the approximately $351 million of revenue recognized for the same period. Of the $338 million collected approximately $159 million represented U.S. dollars received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or U.S. dollars directly received by the company from customers. The balance of $179 million that was collected in fiscal 2015 resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the U.S. dollars to Tidewater. Additionally, the company received an approximate $10 million dividend payment from the Sonatide joint venture during the third quarter of fiscal 2015. For the three months ended June 30, 2015, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $101 million from its Angolan operations, which is $33 million more than the approximately $68 million of revenue recognized for the same period. Of the $101 million collected, approximately $49 million represented U.S. dollars received by Sonatide on behalf of the company or U.S. dollars directly received by the company from customers. The balance of $52 million collected resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanza into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the dollars to Tidewater. The company believes that the process for converting Angolan kwanzas continues to function reasonably well, but the tight U.S. dollar liquidity situation continues in Angola. Sonatide continues to press its commercial banks with which it has relationships to increase the amount of U.S. dollars that are made available to Sonatide. As of June 30, 2015, the company had approximately $385 million in amounts due from Sonatide, with approximately half of the balance reflecting invoiced but unpaid vessel revenue related to services performed by the company through the Sonatide joint venture. Remaining amounts due to the company from Sonatide is generally supported by cash (primarily denominated in Angolan kwanzas) held by Sonatide that is pending conversion into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of such funds. For the three months ended June 30, 2015, Tidewater’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $68 million, or 23%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 70 Tidewater-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (seven of which were stacked on average during the three months ended June 30, 2015), and, for the three months ended June 30, 2014, generated vessel revenues of approximately $87 million, or 23%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 83 Tidewater-owned vessels (four of which were stacked on average during the three months ended June 30, 2014). Sonatide owns eight vessels (two of which are currently stacked) and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from Tidewater-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by Tidewater). In addition, as of June 30, 2015, Sonatide maintained the equivalent of approximately $111 million of primarily Angolan kwanza-denominated deposits in Angolan banks, largely related to customer receipts that had not yet been converted to U.S. dollars, expatriated and then remitted to the company, and approximately $30 million of U.S. dollar-denominated deposits in banks outside of Angola. As of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015, the carrying value of Tidewater’s investment in the Sonatide joint venture, which is included in “Investments in, at equity, and advances to unconsolidated companies,” is approximately $62 million and $67 million, respectively. Due from affiliate at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 of approximately $385 million and $420 million, respectively, represents cash received by Sonatide from customers and due to the company, amounts due from customers that are expected to be remitted to the company through Sonatide and, finally, reimbursable costs paid by Tidewater on behalf of Sonatide. The collection of the amounts due from customers and the subsequent conversion and expatriation process are subject to those risks and considerations set forth above. Due to affiliate at June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 of approximately $192 million and $186 million, respectively, represents amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable (approximately $41 million and $66 million, respectively) and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company. A new presidential decree regulating maritime transportation activities was enacted in Angola in 2014. Following recent discussions with port state authorities and local counsel, the company remains uncertain whether the authorities will interpret the decree to require one hundred percent Angolan ownership of local vessel operators such as Sonatide. This interpretation may result in the need to work with Sonangol to further restructure our Sonatide joint venture and our operations in Angola. The company has been informed by the authorities that enforcement of the new decree would commence in July 2015.The company is seeking further clarification of the new decree. The company is exploring potential alternative structures in order to comply. The Angolan government enacted a new statute, which came into effect on June 30, 2015, for a new levy that could impose an additional 10% surcharge on certain foreign exchange transactions. The specific details of the levy have not yet been disclosed and it is not clear if this new statute will apply to Sonatide’s scope of operations. The company has undertaken efforts to mitigate the effects of the levy, in the event the levy does apply to Sonatide’s operations, including successfully negotiating rate adjustments and termination rights with some of its customers. The company will be unlikely to completely mitigate the effects of the levy, resulting in increased costs and lower margins, if the levy is interpreted to apply to Sonatide’s operations. Management continues to explore ways to profitably participate in the Angolan market while looking for opportunities to reduce the overall level of exposure to the increased risks that the company believes currently characterize the Angolan market. Included among mitigating measures taken by the company to address these risks is the redeployment of vessels from time to time to other markets where there is adequate demand for the company’s vessels. During the year ended March 31, 2015, the company redeployed vessels from its Angolan operations to other markets and also transferred vessels into its Angolan operations from other markets resulting in a net 13 vessels transferred out of Angola, including four smaller crewboats that were stacked outside of Angola. Redeployment of vessels to and from Angola during the quarter ended June 30, 2015 has resulted in a net four vessels transferred out of Angola. As the company considers the redeployment of additional vessels from Angola to other markets, there would likely be temporary negative financial effects associated with such redeployment, including mobilization costs and costs to redeploy Tidewater shore-based employees to other areas, in addition to lost revenues associated with potential downtime between vessel contracts. These financial impacts could, individually or in the aggregate, be material to Tidewater’s results of operations and cash flows for the periods when such costs would be incurred. The recent decline in crude oil and natural gas prices, the reduction in spending expectations among E&P companies, the number of new-build vessels which are expected to deliver within the next two years and the resulting potential overcapacity in the worldwide offshore support vessel market may exacerbate such negative financial effects, particularly if a large re-deployment were undertaken by the company in the near- to intermediate-term. Brazilian Customs In April 2011, two Brazilian subsidiaries of Tidewater were notified by the Customs Office in Macae, Brazil that they were jointly and severally being assessed fines of 155 million Brazilian reais (approximately $50 million as of June 30, 2015). The assessment of these fines is for the alleged failure of these subsidiaries to obtain import licenses with respect to 17 Tidewater vessels that provided Brazilian offshore vessel services to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, over a three-year period ending December 2009. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, Tidewater and its Brazilian subsidiaries believe that vessels that provide services under contract to the Brazilian offshore oil and gas industry are deemed, under applicable law and regulations, to be temporarily imported into Brazil, and thus exempt from the import license requirement. The Macae Customs Office has, without a change in the underlying applicable law or regulations, taken the position that the temporary importation exemption is only available to new, and not used, goods imported into Brazil and therefore it was improper for the company to deem its vessels as being temporarily imported. The fines have been assessed based on this new interpretation of Brazilian customs law taken by the Macae Customs Office. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, the company believes that the assessment is without legal justification and that the Macae Customs Office has misinterpreted applicable Brazilian law on duties and customs. The company is vigorously contesting these fines (which it has neither paid nor accrued) and, based on the advice of its Brazilian counsel, believes that it has a high probability of success with respect to the overturn of the entire amount of the fines, either at the administrative appeal level or, if necessary, in Brazilian courts. In December 2011, an administrative board issued a decision that disallowed 149 million Brazilian reais (approximately $48 million as of June 30, 2015) of the total fines sought by the Macae Customs Office. In two separate proceedings in 2013, a secondary administrative appeals board considered fines totaling 127 million Brazilian reais (approximately $41 million as of June 30, 2015) and rendered decisions that disallowed all of those fines. The remaining fines totaling 28 million Brazilian reais (approximately $9 million as of June 30, 2015) are still subject to a secondary administrative appeals board hearing, but the company believes that both decisions will be helpful in that upcoming hearing. The secondary board decisions disallowing the fines totaling 127 million Brazilian reais are, however, still subject to the possibility of further administrative appeal by the authorities that imposed the initial fines. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Nigeria Marketing Agent Litigation In October 2012, Tidewater had notified the Nigerian marketing agent that it was discontinuing its relationship with the Nigerian marketing agent (Phoenix Tide Offshore Nigeria Limited) and two of its principals (H.H. The Otunba Ayora Dr.Bola Kuforiji-Olubi, OON and Olutokunbo Afolabi Kuforiji). The company has entered into a new strategic relationship with a different Nigerian counterparty that it believes will better serve the company’s long term interests in Nigeria. This new strategic relationship is currently functioning as the company intended. On March 1, 2013, Tidewater filed suit in the London Commercial Court against Tidewater’s Nigerian marketing agent for breach of the agent’s obligations under contractual agreements between the parties. The alleged breach involves actions of the Nigerian marketing agent to discourage various affiliates of TOTAL S.A. from paying approximately $16 million (including U.S. dollar denominated invoices and Naira denominated invoices which have been adjusted for the devaluation of the Naira relative to the U.S. dollar) due to the company for vessel services performed in Nigeria. Shortly after the London Commercial Court filing, TOTAL commenced interpleader proceedings in Nigeria naming the Nigerian agent and the company as respondents and seeking an order which would allow TOTAL to deposit those monies with a Nigerian court for the respondents to resolve. On April 25, 2013, Tidewater filed motions in the Nigerian Federal High Court to stop the interpleader proceedings in Nigeria or alternatively stay them until the resolution of the suit filed in London. The company will continue to actively pursue the collection of those monies. On April 30, 2013, the Nigerian marketing agent filed a separate suit in the Nigerian Federal High Court naming Tidewater and certain TOTAL affiliates as defendants. The suit seeks various declarations and orders, including a claim for the monies that are subject to the above interpleader proceedings, and other relief. The company is seeking dismissal of this suit and otherwise intends to vigorously defend against the claims made. On or about December 30, 2014, the company received notice that the Nigerian marketing agent had filed an action in the Nigerian Federal High court seeking to prevent the continuation of the proceedings initiated by Tidewater in the London Commercial Court. The company intends to vigorously defend that action. The company has not reserved for this receivable and believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. Repairs to U.S. Flagged Vessels Operating Abroad The company recently became aware that it may have had compliance deficiencies in documenting and declaring upon re-entry to U.S. waters all repairs done on its U.S. flagged vessels while they were working outside the United States. When a U.S. flagged vessel operates abroad, any repairs made abroad must be declared to U.S. Customs. Duties must be paid for certain of those repairs upon return to U.S. waters. During our examination of our most recent filings with U.S. Customs, we determined that it was necessary to file amended forms with U.S. Customs. We continue to evaluate the return of other U.S. flagged vessels to the United States to determine whether it is necessary to adjust our responses in any of those instances. To the extent that further evaluation requires us to file amended entries, we do not yet know the magnitude of any duties, fines or interest associated with amending the entries for these vessels. We are committed to bolstering our processes, procedures and training to ensure that we correctly identify all repairs made abroad if and when U.S. flagged vessels return to the United States in the future. Currency Devaluation and Fluctuation Risk Due to the company’s global operations, the company is exposed to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations and exchange rate risks on all charter hire contracts denominated in foreign currencies. For some of our non-U.S. contracts, a portion of the revenue and local expenses are incurred in local currencies with the result that the company is at risk of changes in the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies. We generally do not hedge against any foreign currency rate fluctuations associated with foreign currency contracts that arise in the normal course of business, which exposes us to the risk of exchange rate losses. To minimize the financial impact of these items, the company attempts to contract a significant majority of its services in U.S. dollars. In addition, the company attempts to minimize its financial impact of these risks, by matching the currency of the company’s operating costs with the currency of the revenue streams when considered appropriate. The company continually monitors the currency exchange risks associated with all contracts not denominated in U.S. dollars. Discussions related to the company’s Angolan operations through the Sonatide joint venture are disclosed in this Note 7 above and in “Foreign Exchange Risk” under Item 3 “Qualitative and Quantitative Disclosure about Market Risk.” Legal Proceedings Arbitral Award for the Taking of the Company’s Venezuelan Operations On March 13, 2015, the three member tribunal constituted under the rules of the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) awarded subsidiaries of the company compensation, including accrued interest and costs, for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s (“Venezuela”) expropriation of the investments of those subsidiaries in Venezuela. The award, issued in accordance with the provisions of the Venezuela-Barbados Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”), represented $46.4 million for the fair market value of the company’s principal Venezuelan operating subsidiary, plus interest from May 8, 2009 to the date of payment of that amount accruing at an annual rate of 4.5% compounded quarterly ($14.7 million as of June 30, 2015) and $2.5 million for reimbursement of legal and other costs expended by the company in connection with the arbitration. The aggregate award is therefore $63.6 million as of June 30, 2015. The nature of the investments expropriated and the progress of the ICSID proceeding were previously reported by the company in prior filings. The company will take appropriate steps to enforce and collect the award, which is enforceable in any of the 150 member states that are party to the ICSID Convention. As an initial step, the company was successful in having the award recognized and entered on March 16, 2015 as a final judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July 2015, Venezuela applied to ICSID to annul the award and obtained a provisional stay of enforcement. The company has not yet received a timetable for briefing and hearings associated with the annulment proceedings. The company is evaluating whether to seek to lift the provisional stay of enforcement during the pendency of the annulment proceedings. Even in the absence of a stay of enforcement, the company recognizes that collection of the award may present significant practical challenges, particularly in the short term. Because the award has yet to be satisfied and post-award relief may be sought by Venezuela, the net impact of these matters on the company cannot be reasonably estimated at this time and the company has not recognized a gain related to these matters as of June 30, 2015. Various legal proceedings and claims are outstanding which arose in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions, will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration