XML 28 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.5.0.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
(8) | 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 September 30, 2016:
|  | Number |  |  |  |  |  |  | Invested |  |  | Remaining |
|  | of |  |  | Total |  |  | Through |  |  | Balance |
(In thousands, except vessel count) |  | Vessels |  |  | Cost |  |  | 9/30/16 |  |  | 9/30/16 |
Vessels under construction (A): |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Deepwater PSVs |  |  | 3 |  |  | $ | 163,657 |  |  |  | 115,683 |  |  |  | 47,974 |
Total vessel commitments (B) |  |  | 3 |  |  | $ | 163,657 |  |  |  | 115,683 |  |  |  | 47,974 |
| (A) | Six additional option vessels and a fast supply boat are not included in the table above.
| (B) | The company is entitled to receive a refund of prior shipyard payments totaling $14.3 million which would reduce the remaining balance of vessel commitments. See further discussion below.
The company has approximately $48 million in unfunded capital commitments associated with the three vessels under construction (approximately $33.7 million net of $14.3 million of expected refunds from shipyards) at September 30, 2016. The total cost of the three new-build vessels includes contract costs and other incidental costs. At September 30, 2016, three deepwater platform supply vessels (PSVs), each with between 4,700 and 5,400 deadweight tons (DWT) of cargo capacity, were under construction at different shipyards around the world. The deliveries of the remaining three new-build vessels are currently expected between February and June 2017. In June and September of 2015, the company entered into settlement agreements with an international shipyard, which at the time was constructing six 7,145 BHP towing-supply-class vessels and six 261-foot, 4,700 DWT tons of cargo capacity, deepwater PSVs. Under the settlement agreements, (a) the company took delivery of two towing-supply-class vessels and two PSVs at discounted purchase prices, (b) contracts for the four remaining towing-supply-class vessels were terminated and installment payments were returned to the company and (c) the company received options (but not obligations) to acquire the four remaining PSVs. As previously reported, the company owed $5.1 million in installments on two of the PSVs previously delivered by this shipyard as of March 31, 2016. The shipyard agreed to allow the company to offset the $5.1 million in obligations against the $19.1 million refund owed to the company. In October 2016, the company notified the shipyard that it would not be exercising the four remaining options and requested the return of the $14 million in installments on these four PSVs and the company anticipates receiving a net payment from the shipyard in November 2016 as a result of the company not exercising the four options. The four option vessels are not included in the preceding table of vessel commitments as of September 30, 2016. The return of the installments on the four PSVs is secured by Bank of China refundment guarantees. As a result of these settlements, in fiscal 2016, the company (a) received cash returned by the shipyard of $36 million, (b) terminated its obligation to make any additional payments of approximately $50 million, (c) used $3.5 million of accrued interest due to the company on returned installment payments to offset installment obligations on the four vessels ultimately delivered by this shipyard, and (d) recorded an impairment charge of $0.8 million to write off the amounts not recoverable from the shipyard. In fiscal 2017, the company (w) will receive cash from the shipyard of approximately $26 million, (x) terminated its obligation to make any additional payments of approximately $35 million and (y) used $3.8 million of accrued interest due to the company on returned installment payments to offset installment obligations on the four vessels ultimately delivered by this shipyard. The company anticipates that there will be no further payments, credits or charges under the settlement agreements after the $14 million net payment described above is made by the shipyard. In May 2015, the company entered into a settlement agreement with an international shipyard constructing two 275-foot, 3,800 deadweight tons of cargo capacity, deepwater PSVs to resolve issues associated with the late delivery of these vessels. Under the terms of the settlement, the company could elect to take delivery of one or both completed vessels at any time prior to June 30, 2016. If the company did not elect to take delivery of one or both vessels prior to June 30, 2016 (as that date may be extended by mutual agreement), (a) the company was entitled to receive the return of $5.4 million in aggregate installment payments per vessel together with interest on these installments (which aggregates to approximately $11.9 million) and (b) the company would be relieved of the obligation to pay to the shipyard the $21.7 million of remaining payments per vessel. The company recorded an impairment charge of $1.9 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 to write off the amount not recovered from the shipyard. In June 2016, the shipyard returned to the company approximately $11.5 million (or $11.7 million owed less foreign taxes on interest totaling approximately $0.2 million). The company and shipyard agreed to permit the shipyard to continue to hold the remaining $0.25 million of installments and extend the option period for both vessels until December 31, 2016. The shipyard's obligation to return the $0.25 million (plus interest) 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 September 30, 2016. The company has experienced 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 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 September 30, 2016. 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 successfully pursue 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. 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 joint venture agreement is currently effective and will expire, unless extended, two years after an Angolan entity, which is intended to be one of the Sonatide group of companies, has been incorporated. Based on recent communications with our partner and the appropriate ministry in Luanda, we remain hopeful that the Angolan entity will be incorporated in calendar 2016 after certain Angolan regulatory approvals have been obtained. The challenges for the company to successfully operate in Angola are significant. As the company has previously reported, beginning July 1, 2013, oil companies engaged in exploration and production activities offshore Angola through governmental concessions are required to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange residents in Angolan kwanzas that are initially deposited into an Angolan bank account. Angolan 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. As a result substantial customer payments are made to Sonatide in Angolan kwanzas. The conversion of Angolan kwanzas into U.S. dollars and the subsequent expatriation of the funds is a cumbersome process, causing payment delays and additional operating costs. In addition, through the company’s 49% ownership of Sonatide, the company had recognized foreign exchange losses. The payment process exposes Sonatide, and through the company’s 49% ownership of Sonatide, 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. These effects complicate the ability of the company to manage its cash and liquidity. The company and Sonangol responded to these laws by executing an agreement (the “consortium agreement”) that allowed 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 offshore (that are permitted to 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 consortium agreement expired in November 2015, and the parties have been discussing signing a new consortium agreement . If the parties are unable to agree on a new consortium agreement, the parties would need to negotiate the terms of a new split billing arrangement that would continue to allow the company to receive U.S. dollar payments for services provided offshore. In addition, it is not clear if this type of contracting will be available to Sonatide over the longer term. If the company is unable to reach agreement on a new split billing arrangement, any contract entered into after the expiration of the consortium agreement may result in the receipt of 100% Angolan kwanzas, which would be subject to the challenges and risks described above. The split billing arrangements entered into with customers prior to the expiration of the consortium agreement remain in force by way of addenda or extensions to the previously executed contracts. The National Bank of Angola has also adopted regulations controlling the sale of foreign currency. These regulations generally require that in those situations where oil companies are required to use Angolan kwanza to pay for goods and services provided by foreign exchange resident oilfield service companies, they must purchase those Angolan kwanza from the National Bank of Angola. These foreign exchange resident oilfield services companies, in turn, generally need U.S. dollars 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. An equivalent amount of 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 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 six months ended September 30, 2016, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $69 million from its Angolan operations. Of the $69 million collected, approximately $63 million were 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 $6 million collected resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanza into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the dollars to facilitate payment to the company. The company also reduced the net due from affiliate and due to affiliate balances by approximately $37 million during the six months ended September 30, 2016 through netting transactions based on an agreement with the joint venture. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, the company collected (primarily through Sonatide) approximately $215 million from its Angolan operations, which is slightly more than the approximate $213 million of revenue recognized for the same period. Of the $215 million collected, approximately $122 million were 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 $93 million collected resulted from Sonatide’s converting Angolan kwanza into U.S. dollars and subsequently expatriating the dollars to facilitate payment to the company. Additionally, the company received an approximate $15 million dividend payment from the Sonatide joint venture during the third quarter of fiscal 2016. The company also reduced the net due from affiliate and due to affiliate balances by approximately $84 million during the year ended March 31, 2016 through netting transactions based on an agreement with the joint venture. The company believes that the process for converting Angolan kwanzas continues to function, but the tight U.S. dollar liquidity situation continues in Angola. Sonatide continues to press the commercial banks with which it has relationships to increase the amount of U.S. dollars that are made available to Sonatide. As of September 30, 2016, the company had approximately $300 million in amounts due from Sonatide, with approximately $95 million 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 are, in part, supported by approximately $95 million of 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 six months ended September 30, 2016, the company’s Angolan operations generated vessel revenues of approximately $71.4 million, or 24%, of its consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 59 company-owned vessels that are marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (17 of which were stacked on average during the six months ended September 30, 2016), and, for the six months ended September 30, 2015, generated vessel revenues of approximately $124 million, or 22%, of consolidated vessel revenue, from an average of approximately 68 company-owned vessels (eleven of which were stacked on average during the six months ended September 30, 2015). Sonatide owns seven vessels (three of which are currently stacked) and certain other assets, in addition to earning commission income from company-owned vessels marketed through the Sonatide joint venture (owned 49% by the company). In addition, as of September 30, 2016, Sonatide maintained the equivalent of approximately $95 million of primarily 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 $8 million of U.S. dollar-denominated deposits in banks outside of Angola. As of September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2016, the carrying value of the company’s investment in the Sonatide joint venture, which is included in “Investments in, at equity, and advances to unconsolidated companies,” was approximately $38 million and $37 million, respectively. Due from affiliate at September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2016 of approximately $300 million and $339 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 costs incurred by the company on behalf of Sonatide. The collection of the amounts due to Sonatide from customers, and the subsequent conversion and expatriation process are subject to those risks and considerations set forth above. Due to affiliate at September 30, 2016 and March 31, 2016 of approximately $176 million and $188 million, respectively, represents amounts due to Sonatide for commissions payable and other costs paid by Sonatide on behalf of the company. The Angolan government enacted a 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 additional surcharge has not been imposed on any Sonatide transactions to date. 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. It is unlikely that the company will have the ability to mitigate completely the effects of the levy, resulting in increased costs and lower margins, if the levy is interpreted to apply to Sonatide’s operations. The Angolan government enacted a new statute, which came into effect on July 1, 2016, for a new special contribution on certain banking transactions that imposes a 0.1% tax on the value of all debit transactions from customer’s accounts. The new tax has been imposed on Sonatide’s banking transactions. The relationship between this new tax and the 2015 surcharge is not yet clear. The new tax is not expected to materially impact the financial results of 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. Redeployment of vessels to and from Angola during the six months ended September 30, 2016 and year ended March 31, 2016 has resulted in a net 17 and 23 vessels transferred out of Angola, respectively. The redeployment of additional vessels from Angola to other markets often results in the company incurring mobilization costs and costs to redeploy the company’s shore-based employees to other areas, and experiencing lost revenues associated with potential downtime between vessel contracts. 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 the company were notified by the Customs Office in Macae, Brazil that they were jointly and severally being assessed fines of 155 million Brazilian reais (approximately $47.5 million as of September 30, 2016). The assessment of these fines is for the alleged failure of these subsidiaries to obtain import licenses with respect to 17 company vessels that provided Brazilian offshore vessel services to Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil company, over a three-year period ended December 2009. After consultation with its Brazilian tax advisors, the company 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). Based on the advice of its Brazilian counsel, the company believes that it has a high probability of success with respect to overturning the entire amount of the fines, either at the administrative appeal level or, if necessary, in Brazilian courts. In May 2016, a final administrative appeal allowed fines totaling 3 million Brazilian reais (approximately $1 million as of September 30, 2016). The company intends to appeal this 3 million Brazilian reais administrative award to the appropriate Brazilian court. If the Macae Customs Office were to prevail in the Brazil court action, the company would also be liable to pay substantial interest in the 3 million reais award. Fines totaling 30 million Brazilian reais (approximately $9.2 million as of September 30, 2016) are still subject to additional administrative appeals board hearings, but the company believes that previous administrative appeals board decisions will be helpful in those upcoming hearings for the vast majority of amounts still claimed by the Macae Customs Office. The remaining fines totaling 122 million (approximately $37.4 million as of September 30, 2016) of the original 155 million Brazilian reais of fines are now formally decided in favor of the company and are no longer at issue. The company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Repairs to U.S. Flagged Vessels Operating Abroad During fiscal 2015 the company became aware that it may have had compliance deficiencies in documenting and declaring upon re-entry to the U.S. certain foreign purchases for or repairs to U.S. flagged vessels while they were working outside of the U.S. When a U.S. flagged vessel operates abroad, certain foreign purchases for or repairs made to the U.S. flagged vessel while it is outside of the U.S. are subject to declaration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) upon re-entry to the U.S. and are subject to 50% vessel repair duty. During our examination of our most recent filings with CBP, we determined that it was necessary to file amended forms with CBP to supplement previous filings. We have amended several vessel repair entries with CBP and have paid additional vessel repair duties and interest associated with these amended forms. We continue to review and evaluate the return of other U.S. flagged vessels to the U.S. 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 for additional vessels, we do not yet know the final magnitude of duties, civil penalties, fines and interest associated with amending the entries for these vessels. It is also possible that CBP may seek to impose civil penalties, fines or interest in connection with amended forms already submitted. Currency Devaluation and Fluctuation Risk Due to the company’s international 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 international 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 the 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. 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 ($18.2 million as of September 30, 2016) 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 $67.1 million as of September 30, 2016. The nature of the investments expropriated and the progress of the ICSID proceeding were previously reported by the company in prior filings. The company is committed to taking 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. In August 2015, ICSID formed an annulment committee and the first hearing of the committee took place on November 23, 2015. At that hearing, the committee heard arguments on the company’s motion to lift the provisional stay of enforcement with respect to all or a substantial portion of the award during the pendency of the annulment proceedings. On February 29, 2016, the committee ruled that the company is free to pursue the enforcement of a portion of the award amounting to $38.2 million as of September 30, 2016. Enforcement of the balance of the award ($28.9 million as of September 30, 2016) will remain stayed until the conclusion of the annulment proceeding, which the company anticipates will occur this calendar year. Even with the partial lifting of the stay of enforcement, the company recognizes that collection of the award may present significant practical challenges. Because the award has yet to be satisfied and post-award annulment proceedings are pending, 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 September 30, 2016. Nigeria Marketing Agent Litigation In October 2012, the company notified its Nigerian marketing agent, Phoenix Tide Offshore Nigeria Limited (“Phoenix Tide”), that it was discontinuing its relationship with the marketing agent and two of its principals (H.H. The Otunba Ayora Dr. Bola Kuforiji-Olubi, OON and Olutokunbo Afolabi Kuforiji). The company entered into a new strategic relationship with a different Nigerian marketing agent 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. The company is currently engaged in a number of legal disputes with Phoenix Tide and its two principals both in Nigeria and in the United Kingdom. These disputes involve three primary issues. First, the company believes that Phoenix Tide breached its contractual obligations to the company by discouraging various affiliates of TOTAL S.A. from paying approximately $12 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. The company will continue to actively pursue the collection of those monies. Second, the parties are disputing whether and to what extent the company owes further contractual obligations to Phoenix Tide, including any obligation to pay Phoenix Tide any further amounts for services previously performed. Third, the company is seeking to hold Phoenix Tide’s two principals personally liable to the company for interfering with the company’s business relationship with TOTAL S.A. In the United Kingdom, the company has been successful in obtaining favorable court orders against Phoenix Tide on a variety of issues, including the fact that Phoenix Tide wrongly interfered in stopping the approximate $12 million payment from TOTAL S.A. to the company, and is in the process of enforcing these orders. In April 2016, a United Kingdom court ruled that Phoenix Tide’s two principals were personally responsible for interfering with the company’s business relationship with TOTAL S.A. In June 2016, a United Kingdom court assessed $5.3 million, 1.9 million Nigerian naira and 0.3 million GBP (aggregating to $5.5 million as of September 30, 2016) in damages and legal costs against Phoenix Tide’s two principals for their tortious interference. The company is seeking to enforce that order against Phoenix Tide’s two principals. The disputes being litigated in Nigeria are proceeding slowly and all preliminary rulings by Nigerian courts are presently under appeal. The company has not reserved for this $12 million receivable and believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on the company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

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=68068213&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=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration