XML 58 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | NOTE 9 — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Environmental matters: The Company has instituted extensive environmental conservation programs at its mining facilities in Peru and Mexico. The Company’s environmental programs include, among others, water recovery systems to conserve water and minimize impact on nearby streams, reforestation programs to stabilize the surface of the tailings dams and the implementation of scrubbing technology in the mines to reduce dust emissions. Environmental capital expenditures in the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 were as follows (in millions):
|  | 2014 |  | 2013 |
Peruvian operations |  | $ | 57.6 |  | $ | 32.4 |
Mexican operations |  | 7.7 |  | 21.2 |
|  | $ | 65.3 |  | $ | 53.6 |
Peruvian operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. The Peruvian government, through the Ministry of Environment (MINAM) conducts annual audits of the Company’s Peruvian mining and metallurgical operations. Through these environmental audits, matters related to environmental obligation, compliance with legal requirements, atmospheric emissions, effluent monitoring and waste management are reviewed. The Company believes that it is in material compliance with applicable Peruvian environmental laws and regulations. Peruvian law requires that companies in the mining industry provide assurances for future closure and reclamation. In accordance with the requirements of this law, the Company’s closure plans were approved by MINEM. As part of the closure plans, the Company is providing guarantees to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for the asset retirement obligation. See Note 6, “Asset retirement obligation,” for further discussion of this matter. In 2008, the Peruvian government enacted environmental regulations establishing more stringent air quality standards (“AQS”) for daily sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) emissions for the Peruvian territory. These regulations, as amended in 2013, recognize distinct zones/areas, such as atmospheric basins. As part of these regulations, MINAM was required to carry-out a 12 month ambient air monitoring period, prior to January 1, 2014, to establish SO2 levels. Those areas with a mean 24-hour SO2 concentration equal to less than 20 micrograms per cubic meter (“ug/m3”) are required to develop programs to maintain this level of compliance. Those areas or cities exceeding the mean 24-hour SO2 concentration of 20 ug/m3 will be required to establish an Action Plan to address this problem and are required to achieve the 20 ug/m3 AQS in the future. Meanwhile they are required to achieve mean 24-hour AQS equal to 80 ug/m3 of SO2. However, MINAM has established three atmospheric basins that require further attention to comply with 80ug/m3 of SO2. The Ilo basin is one of these three areas and the Company’s smelter and refinery are part of the area. A supreme decree issued on April 8, 2014, provides that the Company should review its compliance with these regulations and develop a modification plan to reach compliance. The plan must be reported to the government within one year, or by April 8, 2015. In 2013, the Peruvian government enacted new soil environmental quality standards (“SQS”) applicable to any existing facility or project that generates or could generate risk of soil contamination in its area of operation or influence. In March 2014, MINAM issued a supreme decree which establishes additional provisions for the gradual implementation of SQS. Under this rule the Company has twelve months to identify contaminated sites in and around its facilities and present a report of identified contaminated sites. If such sites exist, the Company must submit a decontamination plan for approval within 24 months from the date it is notified by the authority. This decontamination plan shall include remediation actions, a schedule and compliance deadlines. Also, under this rule, if deemed necessary, the Company may request a one year extension, given sound justification. Soil confirmation tests must be carried out after completion of decontamination actions (within the approved schedule) and results must be presented to the authorities within 30 days after receiving said results. Non-compliance with this obligation or with decontamination goals will carry penalties according to an existing sanction scale. However, companies cannot be penalized for non-compliance with the soil SQS during the compliance schedule. In the second quarter of 2014, the Company began the process of seeking bids from third-party testing consultants to prepare the necessary studies, as well as any other requirements of the rules. Mexican operations: The Company’s operations are subject to applicable Mexican federal, state and municipal environmental laws, to Mexican official standards, and to regulations for the protection of the environment, including regulations relating to water supply, water quality, air quality, noise levels and hazardous and solid waste. The principal legislation applicable to the Company’s Mexican operations is the Federal General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (the “General Law”), which is enforced by the Federal Bureau of Environmental Protection (“PROFEPA”). PROFEPA monitors compliance with environmental legislation and enforces Mexican environmental laws, regulations and official standards. PROFEPA may initiate administrative proceedings against companies that violate environmental laws, which in the most extreme cases may result in the temporary or permanent closing of non-complying facilities, the revocation of operating licenses and/or other sanctions or fines. Also, according to the federal criminal code, PROFEPA must inform corresponding authorities regarding environmental non-compliance. In January 2011, Article 180 of the General Law was amended. This amendment, gives an individual or entity the ability to contest administrative acts, including environmental authorizations, permits or concessions granted, without the need to demonstrate the actual existence of harm to the environment, natural resources, flora, fauna or human health, because it will be sufficient to argue that the harm may be caused. In addition in 2011, amendments to the Civil Federal Procedures Code (“CFPC”) were published in the Official Gazette and are now in force. These amendments establish three categories of collective actions, by means of which 30 or more people claiming injury derived from environmental, consumer protection, financial services and economic competition issues will be considered to be sufficient in order to have a legitimate interest to seek through a civil procedure restitution or economic compensation or suspension of the activities from which the alleged injury derived. The amendments to the CFPC may result in more litigation, with plaintiffs seeking remedies, including suspension of the activities alleged to cause harm. In June 2013, the Environmental Liability Federal Law was published in the Official Gazette and became effective one month thereafter. The law establishes general guidelines in order to determine which environmental actions will be considered to cause environmental harm that will give rise to administrative responsibilities (remediation or compensations), criminal responsibilities as well as monetary fines. The Company believes that all of its facilities in Peru and Mexico are in material compliance with applicable environmental, mining and other laws and regulations. The Company also believes that continued compliance with environmental laws of Mexico and Peru will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, properties, result of operations, financial condition or prospects and will not result in material capital expenditures. Litigation matters: Garcia Ataucuri and Others against SCC’s Peruvian Branch: In April 1996, the Branch was served with a complaint filed in Peru by Mr. Garcia Ataucuri and approximately 900 former employees seeking the delivery of a substantial number of “labor shares” (acciones laborales) plus dividends on such shares, to be issued to each former employee in proportion to their time of employment with SCC’s Peruvian Branch, pursuant to a former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law. The labor share litigation is based on claims of former employees for ownership of labor shares that the plaintiffs state that the Branch did not issue during the 1970s until 1979 under the said former Peruvian mandated profit sharing law. In 1971, the Peruvian government enacted legislation providing that mining workers would have a 10% participation in the pre-tax profits of their employing enterprises. This participation was distributed 40% in cash and 60% in an equity interest of the enterprise. In 1978, the equity portion, which was originally delivered to a mining industry workers’ organization, was set at 5.5% of pre-tax profits and was delivered, mainly in the form of “labor shares” to individual workers. The cash portion was set at 4.0% of pre-tax earnings and was delivered to individual employees also in proportion to their time of employment with the Branch. In 1992, the workers’ participation was set at 8%, with 100% payable in cash and the equity participation was eliminated from the law. In relation to the issuance of “labor shares” by the Branch in Peru, the Branch is a defendant in the following lawsuits: 1) Mr. Garcia Ataucuri seeks delivery, to himself and each of the approximately 900 former employees of the Peruvian Branch, of the 3,876,380,679.65 old soles or 38,763,806.80 “labor shares” (acciones laborales), as required by Decree Law 22333 (a former profit sharing law), to be issued proportionally to each former employee in accordance with the time of employment of such employee with SCC’s Branch in Peru, plus dividends on such shares. The 38,763,806.80 labor shares sought in the complaint, with a face value of 100.00 old soles each, represent 100% of the labor shares issued by the Branch during the 1970s until 1979 for all of its employees during that period. The plaintiffs do not represent 100% of the Branch´s eligible employees during that period. It should be noted that the lawsuit refers to a prior Peruvian currency called “sol de oro” or old soles, which was later changed to the “inti”, and then into today´s “nuevo sol.” Due to a past period of high inflation between 1985 and 1990, one billion of old soles is equivalent to today’s one nuevo sol. After lengthy proceedings before the civil courts in Peru on September 19, 2001, on appeal by the Branch, the Peruvian Supreme Court annulled the proceedings noting that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction and that the matter had to be decided by a labor court (the “2000 appeal”). In October 2007, in a separate proceeding initiated by the plaintiffs, the Peruvian Constitutional Court nullified the September 19, 2001 Peruvian Supreme Court decision and ordered the Supreme Court to decide again on the merits of the case accepting or denying the 2000 appeal. In May 2009, the Supreme Court rejected the 2000 appeal of the Branch affirming the adverse decision of the appellate civil court and lower civil court. While the Supreme Court has ordered SCC’s Peruvian Branch to deliver the labor shares and dividends, it has clearly stated that SCC’s Peruvian Branch may prove, by all legal means, its assertion that the labor shares and dividends were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect, an assertion which SCC’s Peruvian Branch continues to make. None of the court decisions state the manner by which the Branch must comply with the delivery of such labor shares or make a liquidation of the amount to be paid for past dividends and interest, if any. On June 9, 2009, SCC’s Peruvian Branch filed a proceeding of relief before a civil court in Peru seeking the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and, in a separate proceeding, a request for a precautionary measure. The civil court rendered a favorable decision on the nullity and the precautionary measure, suspending the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision, for the reasons indicated above and other reasons. In February 2012, the Branch was notified that the civil court had reversed its prior decisions. On appeal by the Peruvian Branch the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision and the precautionary measure. As a result, the nullity of the precautionary measure became final and is not appealable. However, the nullity of the 2009 Supreme Court decision was appealed by the Branch before the Constitutional Court. On April 10, 2014, the Constitutional Court denied the Company’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision. In view of this, SCC´s Peruvian Branch continues to analyze the manner in which the competent lower court will enforce the Supreme Court’s decision and its financial impact. 2) In addition, there are filed against SCC’s Branch the following lawsuits, involving approximately 800 plaintiffs, which seek the same number of labor shares as in the Garcia Ataucuri case, plus interest, labor shares resulting from capital increases and dividends: Armando Cornejo Flores and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 10, 2006); Alejandro Zapata Mamani and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed June 27, 2008); Edgardo Garcia Ataucuri, in representation of 216 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers, v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed May 2011); Juan Guillermo Oporto Carpio v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2011); Rene Mercado Caballero v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed November 2011); Enrique Salazar Alvarez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed December 2011); Indalecio Carlos Perez Cano and others v. SCC Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012); Jesus Mamani Chura and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012); Armando Cornejo Flores, in representation of 37 of SCC’s Peruvian Branch former workers v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed March 2012), Porfirio Ochochoque Mamani and others v. SCC´s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2012); Alfonso Flores Jimenez and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed July 2013) and Micaela Laura Alvarez de Vargas and others v. SCC’s Peruvian Branch (filed August 2013). SCC’s Peruvian Branch has answered the complaints and denied the validity of the claims. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the labor shares were distributed to the former employees in accordance with the profit sharing law then in effect. The Peruvian Branch has not made a provision for these lawsuits because it believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the complaints. Additionally, the amount of this contingency cannot be reasonably estimated by management at this time. The “Virgen Maria” Mining Concessions of the Tia Maria Mining Project The Tia Maria project includes various mining concessions, totaling 32,989.64 hectares. One of the concessions is the “Virgen Maria” mining concession totaling 943.72 hectares or 2.9% of the total mining concessions. Related to the “Virgen Maria” mining concessions, the Company is party to the following lawsuits: a) Exploraciones de Concesiones Metalicas S.A.C. (“Excomet”): In August 2009, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch by the former stockholders of Excomet. The plaintiffs allege that the acquisition of Excomet’s shares by the Branch is null and void because the $2 million purchase price paid by the Branch for the shares of Excomet was not fairly negotiated by the plaintiffs and the Branch. In 2005, the Branch acquired the shares of Excomet after lengthy negotiations with the plaintiffs, and after the plaintiffs, which were all the stockholders of Excomet, approved the transaction in a general stockholders’ meeting. Excomet was at the time owner of the “Virgen Maria” mining concession. In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court reversed the lower court´s decision and remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings. As of June 30, 2014, the case remains in the discovery stage. b) Sociedad Minera de Responsabilidad Limitada Virgen Maria de Arequipa (SMRL Virgen Maria): In August 2010, a lawsuit was filed against SCC’s Branch and others by SMRL Virgen Maria, a company which until July 2003 owned the mining concession Virgen Maria. SMRL Virgen Maria sold this mining concession in July 2003 to Excomet (see a) above). The plaintiff alleges that the sale of the mining concession Virgen Maria to Excomet is null and void because the persons who attended the shareholders’ meeting of SMRL Virgen Maria, at which the purchase was agreed upon, were not the real owners of the shares. The plaintiff is also pursuing the nullity of all the subsequent acts regarding the mining property (acquisition of the shares of Excomet by SCC’s Branch, noted above, and the sale of this concession to SCC’s Branch by Excomet). In October 2011, the civil court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the superior court remanded the proceedings to the lower court, ordering the issuance of a new decision. On June 25, 2013, the lower court dismissed the case due to procedural defects. Upon appeal by the plaintiff, on December 2, 2013 the Superior Court reversed the lower court’s decision due to procedural defects and ordered the issuance of a new resolution. As of June 30, 2014, the case remains pending without further developments. c) Omar Nunez Melgar: In May 2011, Mr. Omar Nunez Melgar commenced a lawsuit against the Peruvian Mining and Metallurgical Institute and MINEM challenging the denial of his request of a new mining concession that conflicted with SCC’s Branch’s Virgen Maria mining concession. SCC’s Branch has been made a party to the proceedings as the owner of the Virgen Maria concession. SCC’s Branch has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of June 30, 2014, the case remains pending without further developments. The Company asserts that the lawsuits are without merit and is vigorously defending against these lawsuits. Special Regional Pasto Grande Project (“Pasto Grande Project”) In the last quarter of 2012, the Pasto Grande Project, an entity of the Regional Government of Moquegua, filed a lawsuit against SCC’s Peruvian Branch alleging property rights over a certain area used by the Peruvian Branch and seeking the demolition of the tailings dam where SCC’s Peruvian Branch has deposited its tailings from the Toquepala and Cuajone operations since 1995. The Peruvian Branch has had title to use the area in question since 1960 and has constructed and operated the tailing dams also with proper governmental authorization, since 1995. SCC’s Peruvian Branch asserts that the lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending against the lawsuit. Upon a motion filed by the Peruvian Branch, the lower court has included the MINEM as a defendant in this lawsuit. MINEM has answered the complaint and denied the validity of the claim. As of June 30, 2014, the case remains pending without further developments. Labor matters: In recent years the Company has experienced a positive labor environment in its operations in Mexico and Peru which is allowing an increase in productivity as well as helping to achieve the goals of its capital expansion program. Peruvian operations: Approximately 67% of the Company’s 4,500 Peruvian employees were unionized at June 30, 2014, represented by seven separate unions. Three of these unions, one at each major production area, represent the majority of the Company´s workers. There are also four smaller unions, representing the balance of workers. The Company conducted negotiations with the unions whose collective bargaining agreements expired in 2012. In 2013, the Company signed three-year agreements with all the unions. The agreements included, among other things, annual salary increases of 6.5%, 5% and 5% for each of the three years. Mexican operations: In recent years, the Mexican operations have experienced a positive improvement of their labor environment, as its workers, opted to change their affiliation from the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores Mineros, Metalurgicos y Similares de la Republica Mexicana (the “National Mining Union”) led by Napoleon Gomez Urrutia to other less politicized unions. However, the workers of the San Martin and Taxco mines, who are still under the National Mining Union, have been on strike since July 2007. On December 10, 2009, a federal court confirmed the legality of the San Martin strike. In order to recover the control of the San Martin mine and resume operations, the Company filed a court petition on January 27, 2011 requesting that the court, among other things, define the termination payment for each unionized worker. The court denied the petition alleging that, according to federal labor law, the union was the only legitimate party to file such petition. On appeal by the Company, on May 13, 2011, the Mexican federal tribunal accepted the petition. In July 2011, the National Mining Union appealed the favorable court decision before the Supreme Court. On November 7, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the federal tribunal. The Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision, which recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. A favorable decision of the labor court in this new proceeding would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at San Martin. As of June 30, 2014, the resolution of this case is still pending. On August 1, 2013, the National Union of Workers Engaged in Exploration, Exploitation and Processing of Mines in the Mexican Republic, which is the union operating at Mexicana del Cobre and IMMSA, filed a new petition before the labor authorities to replace the National Mining Union at the San Martin mine, because it believes that it represents more workers at the San Martin mine than the National Mining Union. As of June 30, 2014, the resolution of this case is still pending. In the case of the Taxco mine, following the workers refusal to allow exploration of new reserves, the Company commenced litigation seeking to terminate the labor relationship with workers of the Taxco mine (including the related collective bargaining agreement). On September 1, 2010, the federal labor court issued a ruling approving the termination of the collective bargaining agreement and all the individual labor contracts of the workers affiliated with the Mexican mining union at the Taxco mine. The mining union appealed the labor court ruling before a federal court. In September 2011, the federal court accepted the union’s appeal and requested that the federal labor court review the procedure. After several legal proceedings on January 25, 2013, the Company filed a new proceeding before the labor court on the basis of the Supreme Court decision in the San Martin case, which recognized the right of the labor court to define responsibility for the strike and the termination payment for each unionized worker. On June 16, 2014, the labor court denied the petition of the Company. The resolution issued by the labor court will be vigorously challenged by the Company before a federal court, by considering that it was issued against the Supreme Court decision. A favorable decision would have the effect of terminating the protracted strike at Taxco. It is expected that operations at these mines will remain suspended until these labor issues are resolved. In view of these length strikes, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of the San Martin and Taxco mines to ascertain whether impairment exists. The Company concluded that the assets located at these mines are not impaired. Other legal matters: The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to its operations, but the Company does not believe that decisions adverse to it in any such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. Other Contingencies: Tia Maria: Tia Maria, a Peruvian investment project, was suspended by governmental action in April 2011 in light of protests and disruptions carried out by a small group of activists who alleged, among other things, that the project would result in severe environmental contamination and the diversion of agricultural water resources. The Company prepared a new Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) study taking into account local community concerns and new government guidance. The Company considers that this new EIA will alleviate the concerns previously raised by the Tia Maria project’s neighboring communities, provide them with an independent source of information and reaffirm the validity of the Company’s assessment of the project. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company successfully held the two workshops and the public hearing required as part of the EIA approval process and also submitted the new EIA for the Tia Maria project to MINEM. The Company responded to comments received from the governmental authorities and other stakeholders on May 26, 2014. The Company expects to receive approval of this study during the third quarter of 2014 and move forward with this project, with the goal of production start-up in the first quarter of 2017. However, no assurances can be given as to the specific timing of such approval. For further developments please see Note 14. The Company has legal and valid title to the Tia Maria mining concessions and the over-lapping surface land in the area. None of above noted activities have in any way challenged, revoked, impaired or annulled the Company´s legal rights to the Tia Maria mining concessions and/or the over-lapping surface land titles acquired in the past. All the Company’s property rights on these areas are in full force. In view of the delay in this project, the Company has reviewed the carrying value of this asset to ascertain whether impairment exists. Total spending on the project, through June 30, 2014, was $537.0 million of which $189.5 million has been reassigned to other Company operations. The Company does not believe that an impairment exists. Other commitments: Peruvian Operations Power purchase agreements · Enersur: In 1997, SCC signed a power purchase agreement with an independent power company, Enersur S.A. under which SCC agreed to purchase all of its power needs for its current Peruvian operations from Enersur for twenty years, through April 2017. · Electroperu S.A.:In June 2014, the Company signed a power purchase agreement for 120MWh with the state company Electroperu S.A., under which Electroperu S.A. will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for twenty years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2037. · Kallpa Generacion S.A. (“Kallpa”): In July 2014, the Company signed a power purchase agreement for 120MWh with Kallpa, an independent Israeli owned power company, under which Kallpa will supply energy for the Peruvian operations for ten years starting on April 17, 2017 and ending on April 30, 2027. Toquepala Concentrator Expansion In connection with the EIA for the Toquepala expansion project, some community groups raised concerns related to water usage and pollution. As a result of these issues the Peruvian government started discussions with the local communities and the regional authorities to resolve this impasse. In February 2013, the Company reached a final agreement with the province of Candarave, one of the provinces neighboring the Toquepala unit, which commits the Company to funding S/.255 million (approximately $100 million) for development projects in the province. In the second quarter of 2013, the Company made a first contribution of S/.45 million (approximately $17 million) to the development fund of the Candarave province The Company continued working with the authorities of the Candarave province and in June 2013 signed an agreement with the National Water Authority, local authorities and the Candarave Board of Water Users for the hydrogeological study of the Locumba river basin in order to improve the water utilization in the province. In November 2013, the Company reached a final agreement with the Jorge Basadre province which commits the Company to fund S/.100 million (approximately $36 million) for social development projects in the province. In addition, the Company has agreed to fund various other social programs with the use of advance income tax payments. The contributions to Candarave and Jorge Basadre provinces are contingent upon receiving approval for the project and will be expended through the life of the Toquepala expansion project. With these agreements the Company is close to establishing accords with the principal communities and interested parties in the area. On April 16, 2014, the Company successfully held the public hearing required as a pre-condition for approval of the project’s EIA. On July 1, 2014, the Company received comments and observations from the authorities and stakeholders, related to the EIA for the Toquepala concentrator expansion and expects to answer them during the third quarter of 2014. The Company expects to continue the development of this project which will increase annual production by 100,000 tons of copper and 3,100 tons of molybdenum. Mexican operations Power purchase agreement - MGE MGE, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, has completed the construction of the two power plants in Mexico designed to supply power to some of the Company’s Mexican operations. It is expected that MGE will supply approximately 12% of its power output to third-party energy users. In 2012, the Company signed a power purchase agreement with MGE, whereby MGE will supply the Company with power through 2032. The first plant was completed in June 2013 and the second in the first quarter of 2014. MGE is currently waiting the authorization for the interconnection with the Mexican electrical system to start operations at the second plant. The first plant began to supply power to the Company in December 2013. Commitment for Capital projects: As of June 30, 2014, the Company has committed $368.3 million for the expansion programs at the Mexican operations. These funds are scheduled to be expended in the next twelve months. Tax contingency matters: Tax contingencies are provided for under ASC 740-10-50-15 Uncertain tax positions (see Note 4, “Income taxes”).

X
- 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 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 2: 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 3: 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=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: 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 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