XML 79 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: |
15. | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:
Investments in Affiliates and Other Entities As described in Note 11, Quanta holds investments in certain joint ventures with third parties for the purpose of providing infrastructure services under certain customer contracts. Losses incurred by these joint ventures are shared equally by the joint venture members. However, each member of the joint venture is jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations of the joint venture under the contract with the customer and therefore can be liable for full performance of the contract with the customer. In circumstances where Quanta’s participation in a joint venture qualifies as a general partnership, the joint venture partners are jointly and severally liable for all of the obligations of the joint venture including obligations owed to the customer or any other person or entity. Quanta is not aware of circumstances that would lead to future claims against it for material amounts in connection with these joint and several liabilities. In the joint venture arrangements entered into by Quanta, each joint venturer indemnifies the other party for any liabilities incurred in excess of the liabilities such other party is obligated to bear under the respective joint venture agreement. It is possible, however, that Quanta could be required to pay or perform obligations in excess of its share if the other joint venturer failed or refused to pay or perform its share of the obligations. Quanta is not aware of circumstances that would lead to future claims against it for material amounts that would not be indemnified. Leases Quanta leases certain land, buildings and equipment under non-cancelable lease agreements, including related party leases as discussed in Note 14. The terms of these agreements vary from lease to lease, including some with renewal options and escalation clauses. The following schedule shows the future minimum lease payments under these leases as of December 31, 2012 (in thousands):
|  | Operating |
|  | Leases |
Year Ending December 31 — |  |  |  |
2013 |  | $ | 24,264 |
2014 |  |  | 19,689 |
2015 |  |  | 15,324 |
2016 |  |  | 11,929 |
2017 |  |  | 6,767 |
Thereafter |  |  | 16,192 |
Total minimum lease payments |  | $ | 94,165 |
Rent expense related to operating leases was approximately $92.3 million, $110.1 million and $100.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Quanta has guaranteed the residual value on certain of its equipment operating leases. Quanta has agreed to pay any difference between this residual value and the fair market value of the underlying asset at the date of termination of the leases. At December 31, 2012, the maximum guaranteed residual value was approximately $208.1 million. Quanta believes that no significant payments will be made as a result of the difference between the fair market value of the leased equipment and the guaranteed residual value. However, there can be no assurance that significant payments will not be required in the future. Committed Capital Expenditures Quanta has committed capital for the expansion of its fiber optic network, although Quanta typically does not commit capital to new network expansions until it has a committed licensing arrangement in place with at least one customer. The amounts of committed capital expenditures are estimates of costs required to build the networks under contract. The actual capital expenditures related to building the networks could vary materially from these estimates. As of December 31, 2012, Quanta estimates these committed capital expenditures to be approximately $17.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. Also during 2012, Quanta committed capital for the expansion of its vehicle fleet in order to accommodate manufacturer lead times on certain types of vehicles. As of December 31, 2012, production orders for approximately $13.5 million had been issued with delivery dates expected to occur throughout 2013. Although Quanta has committed to purchase these vehicles at the time of their delivery, Quanta intends that these orders will be assigned to third party leasing companies and made available to Quanta under certain of its master equipment lease agreements, which will release Quanta from its capital commitment. Litigation and Claims Quanta is from time to time party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, breach of contract and/or property damages, employment-related damages, punitive damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to all such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, Quanta records a reserve when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, Quanta discloses matters for which management believes a material loss is at least reasonably possible. Except as otherwise stated below, none of these proceedings, separately or in the aggregate, are expected to have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In all instances, management has assessed the matter based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success. Management’s judgment may prove materially inaccurate, and such judgment is made subject to the known uncertainty of litigation. California Fire Litigation — San Diego County. On June 18, 2010, PAR Electrical Contractors, Inc. (PAR), a wholly owned subsidiary of Quanta, was named as a third party defendant in four lawsuits in California state court in San Diego County, California, all of which arise out of a wildfire in the San Diego area that started on October 21, 2007, referred to as the Witch Creek fire. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection issued a report concluding that the Witch Creek fire was started when the conductors of a three phase 69kV transmission line, known as TL 637, owned by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), touched each other, dropping sparks on dry grass. The Witch Creek fire, together with another wildfire referred to as the Guejito fire that allegedly merged with the Witch Creek fire, burned a reported 198,000 acres, over 1,500 homes and structures and is alleged to have caused two deaths and numerous personal injuries. Numerous lawsuits have been filed directly against SDG&E and its parent company, Sempra, claiming SDG&E’s power lines caused the fire. The court ordered that the claims be organized into the four lawsuits mentioned above and grouped the matters by type of plaintiff, namely, insurance subrogation claimants, individual/business claimants, governmental claimants, and a class action matter, for which class certification has since been denied. PAR is not named as a direct defendant in any of these lawsuits against SDG&E or its parent. SDG&E has reportedly settled many of the claims. On June 18, 2010, SDG&E joined PAR to the four lawsuits as a third party defendant, seeking contractual and equitable indemnification for losses related to the Witch Creek fire. SDG&E’s claims for indemnity relate to work done by PAR involving the replacement of one pole on TL 637 about four months prior to the Witch Creek fire. While Quanta did not believe that the work done by PAR was the cause of the contact between the conductors, PAR notified its various insurers of the claims. All but one of the insurers contested coverage. On August 5, 2011, PAR and Quanta filed a lawsuit in California state court against those insurers seeking a determination that coverage exists under the policies. On November 5, 2012, PAR, Quanta, PAR’s insurers and SDG&E entered into a mutual settlement agreement pursuant to which SDG&E released PAR, Quanta and PAR’s insurers in exchange for payment by PAR’s insurers of a negotiated settlement amount and payment by PAR of $33.8 million, of which $7.5 million had been previously expensed, and $26.3 million was funded by an insurer as part of the previously recorded $35.0 million liability and corresponding insurance recovery receivable associated with a reimbursement-type policy. In the settlement, one other insurer reserved its rights to contest coverage and seek reimbursement from PAR of the $25.0 million this insurer paid to SDG&E as part of the settlement. That insurer subsequently agreed not to contest coverage or seek reimbursement from PAR, and pursuant to mutual releases executed by the parties, the coverage lawsuit was dismissed as to all parties in January 2013. California Fire Claim — Amador County. In October 2004, a wildfire in Amador County, California, burned 16,800 acres. The United States Forest Service alleged that the fire originated as a result of the activities of a Quanta subsidiary crew performing vegetation management under a contract with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E). In November 2007, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) sent a written demand to the Quanta subsidiary for payment of fire suppression costs of approximately $8.5 million. Quanta recorded a liability and corresponding insurance recovery receivable of approximately $8.5 million associated with this matter based on the written demand received from the USDA. The USDA informally communicated that it also intends to seek past and future restoration and other damages of approximately $51.3 million, as well as other unspecified damages. PG&E tendered defense and indemnification for the matter to Quanta in 2010. On August 3, 2012, the USDA filed suit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, against Quanta, its subsidiary and PG&E, seeking unspecified damages for fire suppression costs, rehabilitation and restoration expenses, and loss of timber, habitat and environmental values, among other things, including recovery of fees and expenses. Quanta and its subsidiary are prepared to vigorously defend against any liability and damage allegations. Quanta notified its insurers, and two insurers are participating under a reservation of rights. Two other insurers are also participating but have not stated a position regarding coverage. In January 2013, Quanta and its subsidiary filed a lawsuit in Amador County seeking a declaration that the insurers have a duty at their respective levels to pay any damages resulting from the USDA claims. The parties attended mediation in January 2013. While a resolution was not reached at the mediation, the parties have subsequently continued negotiating through the mediator. As a result of these continued negotiations, a settlement-in-principle has been reached with the USDA, subject to approval by the United States Department of Justice, for an amount within Quanta’s available insurance coverage. However, should the terms of the settlement-in-principle fail to be agreed in writing by the parties and approved by the Department of Justice, these claims could result in a significant uninsured loss and a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Arbitration. On October 1, 2010, Mears Group, Inc. (Mears), a wholly owned subsidiary of Quanta, filed a request for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London against the National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago (NGC). The request for arbitration arises out of a contract between Mears and NGC for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) services in connection with a shore approach of a natural gas pipeline. During pullback of the pipeline, a component on the drill rig operated by Mears failed, and the pipeline was lodged downhole. Subsequent efforts to salvage the pipeline by NGC, Mears, and other parties failed to dislodge the pipeline. NGC subsequently hired a separate HDD contractor to complete reworks. Mears alleges breach of contract, among other things, and seeks recovery for works performed, standby costs, demobilization costs, and other expenses, totaling approximately $16.5 million, including taxes, and additionally seeks recovery of pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Mears contends in the arbitration that NGC breached the contract between the parties by providing a pipeline with insufficient buoyancy, weighing significantly more than the weight specified in the contract. In addition, Mears argues that NGC failed to provide a contractually required builders all-risk insurance policy naming Mears as an additional insured, which would have covered losses associated with a pullback failure. Moreover, Mears asserts that NGC agreed to indemnify Mears for losses to NGC’s equipment for events occurring during the project, and that any recovery by NGC is therefore barred. NGC counterclaimed in the arbitration, asserting that Mears breached the contract and performed negligently by failing to provide a drilling component capable of withstanding loads during pullback and providing a hole of insufficient cleanliness such that debris and other materials contributed to excess forces experienced during Mears’ pullback of the pipeline. NGC seeks recovery for the costs of the salvage operations, the cost of the reworks, as well as other costs, totaling approximately $79.5 million, and additionally seeks recovery of pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses. The arbitration hearings were completed during the third quarter of 2012, but no decision has been reached. Mears believes that it provided a hole of sufficient cleanliness, that its drilling components were fit for the purposes intended under the contract, and that pullback would not have failed had NGC provided a pipeline conforming to contractual weight specifications. Thus, Mears continues to vigorously pursue its claims and defend NGC’s counterclaims, and Mears believes it will prevail in the arbitration. Mears also notified its insurers of the counterclaims, and although coverage was denied, Mears is continuing to pursue its insurers for coverage. Due to the nature of these claims, however, an adverse result in these proceedings could result in a significant uninsured loss that could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Concentrations of Credit Risk Quanta is subject to concentrations of credit risk related primarily to its cash and cash equivalents and accounts receivable, including amounts related to unbilled accounts receivable and costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts. Substantially all of Quanta’s cash investments are managed by what it believes to be high credit quality financial institutions. In accordance with Quanta’s investment policies, these institutions are authorized to invest this cash in a diversified portfolio of what Quanta believes to be high quality investments, which consist primarily of interest-bearing demand deposits, money market mutual funds and investment grade commercial paper with original maturities of three months or less. Although Quanta does not currently believe the principal amount of these investments is subject to any material risk of loss, changes in economic conditions could impact the interest income Quanta receives from these investments. In addition, Quanta grants credit under normal payment terms, generally without collateral, to its customers, which include electric power, natural gas and oil pipeline companies, governmental entities, general contractors, and builders, owners and managers of commercial and industrial properties located primarily in the United States and Canada. Consequently, Quanta is subject to potential credit risk related to changes in business and economic factors throughout the United States and Canada, which may be heightened as a result of uncertain economic and financial market conditions that have existed in recent years. However, Quanta generally has certain statutory lien rights with respect to services provided. Historically, some of Quanta’s customers have experienced significant financial difficulties, and others may experience financial difficulties in the future. These difficulties expose Quanta to increased risk related to collectability of billed and unbilled receivables and costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts for services Quanta has performed. For each of the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, one customer accounted for approximately 11% of consolidated revenues. The services provided to these customers relate primarily to Quanta’s Electric Power Infrastructure Services segment in 2011 and its Natural Gas and Pipeline Infrastructure Services segment in 2010. As of December 31, 2012, two customers accounted for approximately 16% and 11% of consolidated billed and accrued accounts receivable. Substantially all of the balance for the customer with 11% of consolidated billed and accrued accounts receivable relates to one contract and is comprised primarily of certain contract change orders for which the customer acceptance process is ongoing. Additionally, as of December 31, 2011, one customer accounted for approximately 10% of consolidated billed and accrued accounts receivable. The services provided to these customers, with billed and accrued accounts receivable balances greater than 10% of the consolidated balance, relate primarily to Quanta’s Electric Power Infrastructure Services segment. No other customers represented 10% or more of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 or of billed and unbilled accounts receivable as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. Self-Insurance Quanta is insured for employer’s liability, general liability, auto liability and workers’ compensation claims. Since August 1, 2009, all policy deductible levels are $5.0 million per occurrence, other than employer’s liability, which is subject to a deductible of $1.0 million. Quanta also has employee health care benefit plans for most employees not subject to collective bargaining agreements, of which the primary plan is subject to a deductible of $375,000 per claimant per year. Losses under all of these insurance programs are accrued based upon Quanta’s estimates of the ultimate liability for claims reported and an estimate of claims incurred but not reported, with assistance from third-party actuaries. These insurance liabilities are difficult to assess and estimate due to unknown factors, including the severity of an injury, the extent of damage, the determination of Quanta’s liability in proportion to other parties and the number of incidents not reported. The accruals are based upon known facts and historical trends, and management believes such accruals are adequate. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the gross amount accrued for insurance claims totaled $160.8 million and $201.2 million, with $120.2 million and $155.4 million considered to be long-term and included in other non-current liabilities. Related insurance recoveries/receivables as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 were $22.2 million and $63.1 million, of which $2.3 million and $9.8 million are included in prepaid expenses and other current assets and $19.9 million and $53.3 million are included in other assets, net. These balance sheet amounts include liabilities and recoveries/receivables related to the insurance claims retained by Quanta associated with the sale of its telecommunication operating units on December 3, 2012. Quanta renews its insurance policies on an annual basis, and therefore deductibles and levels of insurance coverage may change in future periods. In addition, insurers may cancel Quanta’s coverage or determine to exclude certain items from coverage, or Quanta may elect not to obtain certain types or incremental levels of insurance if it believes that the cost to obtain such coverage exceeds the additional benefits obtained. In any such event, Quanta’s overall risk exposure would increase, which could negatively affect its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Letters of Credit Certain of Quanta’s vendors require letters of credit to ensure reimbursement for amounts they are disbursing on its behalf, such as to beneficiaries under its self-funded insurance programs. In addition, from time to time, certain customers require Quanta to post letters of credit to ensure payment to its subcontractors and vendors and to guarantee performance under its contracts. Such letters of credit are generally issued by a bank or similar financial institution, typically pursuant to Quanta’s credit facility. Each letter of credit commits the issuer to pay specified amounts to the holder of the letter of credit if the holder demonstrates that Quanta has failed to perform specified actions. If this were to occur, Quanta would be required to reimburse the issuer of the letter of credit. Depending on the circumstances of such a reimbursement, Quanta may also be required to record a charge to earnings for the reimbursement. Quanta does not believe that it is likely that any material claims will be made under a letter of credit in the foreseeable future. As of December 31, 2012, Quanta had $183.2 million in letters of credit outstanding under its credit facility primarily to secure obligations under its casualty insurance program. These are irrevocable stand-by letters of credit with maturities generally expiring at various times throughout 2013. Upon maturity, it is expected that the majority of these letters of credit will be renewed for subsequent one-year periods. Performance Bonds and Parent Guarantees In certain circumstances, Quanta is required to provide performance bonds in connection with its contractual commitments. Quanta has indemnified its sureties for any expenses paid out under these performance bonds. As of December 31, 2012, the total amount of outstanding performance bonds was approximately $2.0 billion, and the estimated cost to complete these bonded projects was approximately $643.4 million. Quanta, from time to time, guarantees the obligations of its wholly owned subsidiaries, including obligations under certain contracts with customers, certain lease obligations and, in some states, obligations in connection with obtaining contractors’ licenses. Quanta is not aware of any material obligations for performance or payment asserted against it under any of these guarantees. Employment Agreements Quanta has various employment agreements with certain executives and other employees, which provide for compensation and certain other benefits and for severance payments under certain circumstances. Certain employment agreements also contain clauses that become effective upon a change of control of Quanta. Quanta may be obligated to pay certain amounts to employees upon the occurrence of any of the defined events in the various employment agreements. Collective Bargaining Agreements Several of Quanta’s operating units are parties to various collective bargaining agreements with unions that represent certain of their employees. The collective bargaining agreements expire at various times and have typically been renegotiated and renewed on terms similar to those in the expiring agreements. The agreements require the operating units to pay specified wages, provide certain benefits to their union employees and contribute certain amounts to multi-employer pension plans and employee benefit trusts. Quanta’s multiemployer pension plan contribution rates generally are specified in the collective bargaining agreements (usually on an annual basis), and contributions are made to the plans on a “pay-as-you-go” basis based on its union employee payrolls, which cannot be determined for future periods because the location and number of union employees that Quanta employs at any given time and the plans in which they may participate vary depending on the projects Quanta has ongoing at any time and the need for union resources in connection with those projects. The PPA also added special funding and operational rules generally applicable to plan years beginning after 2007 for multi-employer plans that are classified as “endangered,” “seriously endangered” or “critical” status based on multiple factors (including, for example, the plan’s funded percentage, cash flow position and whether it is projected to experience a minimum funding deficiency). Plans in these classifications must adopt measures to improve their funded status through a funding improvement or rehabilitation plan, as applicable, which may require additional contributions from employers (which may take the form of a surcharge on benefit contributions) and/or modifications to retiree benefits. Certain plans to which Quanta contributes or may contribute in the future are in “endangered,” “seriously endangered” or “critical” status. The amount of additional funds, if any, that Quanta may be obligated to contribute to these plans in the future cannot be estimated due to uncertainty of the future levels of work that require the specific use of union employees covered by these plans, as well as the future contribution levels and possible surcharges on contributions applicable to these plans. Quanta may be subject to additional liabilities imposed by law as a result of its participation in multi-employer defined benefit pension plans. For example, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, imposes certain liabilities upon an employer who is a contributor to a multi-employer pension plan if the employer withdraws from the plan or the plan is terminated or experiences a mass withdrawal. These liabilities include an allocable share of the unfunded vested benefits in the plan for all plan participants, not merely the benefits payable to a contributing employer’s own retirees. As a result, participating employers may bear a higher proportion of liability for unfunded vested benefits if other participating employers cease to contribute or withdraw, with the reallocation of liability being more acute in cases when a withdrawn employer is insolvent or otherwise fails to pay its withdrawal liability. Other than as described below, Quanta is not aware of any material amounts of withdrawal liability that have been incurred as a result of a withdrawal by any of Quanta’s operating units from any multi-employer defined benefit pension plans. In the fourth quarter of 2011, Quanta recorded a partial withdrawal liability of approximately $32.6 million related to the withdrawal by certain Quanta subsidiaries from the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan (the Central States Plan). The partial withdrawal liability recognized by Quanta was based on estimates received from the Central States Plan during 2011 for a complete withdrawal by all Quanta companies participating in the Central States Plan. The withdrawal followed an amendment to a collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters that eliminated obligations to contribute to the Central States Plan, which is in critical status and is significantly underfunded as to its vested benefit obligations. The amendment was negotiated by the Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA) on behalf of its members, which include the Quanta subsidiaries that withdrew from the Central States Plan. Quanta believed that withdrawing from the Central States Plan in the fourth quarter of 2011 was advantageous because it limited Quanta’s exposure to increased liabilities from a future withdrawal if the underfunded status of the Central States Plan deteriorates further. Quanta and other PLCA members now contribute to a different multi-employer pension plan on behalf of Teamsters employees. The Central States Plan has asserted that the withdrawal of the PLCA members was not effective in 2011, although Quanta believes that a legally effective withdrawal occurred in the fourth quarter of 2011. During the third quarter of 2012, the Central States Plan provided Quanta with an estimate of the potential withdrawal liability, indicating that the withdrawal liability is approximately $32.8 million based on a partial withdrawal in the fourth quarter of 2011, approximately $39.7 million based on a partial withdrawal in the first quarter of 2012, or approximately $40.1 million based on a complete withdrawal in 2012. Quanta continues to dispute the assertions of the Central States Plan regarding the effective date of the partial withdrawal. Once an assessment is received, Quanta may seek to challenge and further negotiate the amount of the assessment. As a result, the final partial withdrawal liability cannot yet be determined with certainty and could be materially higher or lower than the $32.6 million Quanta recognized in the fourth quarter of 2011. Certain other Quanta subsidiaries continued to participate in the Central States Plan through the end of 2012. The consequences of withdrawal of these subsidiaries from the plan will depend on various factors, including negotiation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreements under which the subsidiaries participate and whether exemptions from withdrawal liability applicable to construction industry employers will be available. Given the unknown nature of some of these factors, the amount or timing of any liability upon withdrawal of the subsidiaries remaining in the Central States Plan is uncertain. However, Quanta currently does not expect the incremental liability upon withdrawal of the subsidiaries remaining in the Central States Plan to be material. Indemnities Quanta generally indemnifies its customers for the services it provides under its contracts, as well as other specified liabilities, which may subject Quanta to indemnity claims and liabilities and related litigation. Quanta has also indemnified various parties against specified liabilities that those parties might incur in the future in connection with Quanta’s previous acquisition or disposition of certain companies. The indemnities under acquisition or disposition agreements are usually contingent upon the other party incurring liabilities that reach specified thresholds. As of December 31, 2012, except as otherwise set forth above in Litigation and Claims, Quanta does not believe any material liabilities for asserted claims exist against it in connection with any of these indemnity obligations.

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 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: 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=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: 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 Reference 5: 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 6: 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 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration