XML 36 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.21.1

Commitments And Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Apr. 03, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We guarantee obligations of certain outside third parties, consisting primarily of grower loans, which are substantially collateralized by the underlying assets. The remaining terms of the underlying obligations cover periods up to 10 years, and the maximum potential amount of future payments as of April 3, 2021, was not significant. The likelihood of material payments under these guarantees is not considered probable. At April 3, 2021 and October 3, 2020, no significant liabilities for guarantees were recorded. We have cash flow assistance programs in which certain livestock suppliers participate. Under these programs, we pay an amount for livestock equivalent to a standard cost to grow such livestock during periods of low market sales prices. The amounts of such payments that are in excess of the market sales price are recorded as receivables and accrue interest. Participating suppliers are obligated to repay these receivables balances when market sales prices exceed this standard cost, or upon termination of the agreement. Our maximum commitment associated with these programs is limited to the fair value of each participating livestock supplier’s net tangible assets. The potential maximum commitment as of April 3, 2021 was approximately $315 million. The total receivables under these programs were $24 million and $29 million at April 3, 2021 and October 3, 2020, respectively. These receivables are included, net of allowance for uncollectible amounts, in Accounts Receivable in our Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets. Even though these programs are limited to the net tangible assets of the participating livestock suppliers, we also manage a portion of our credit risk associated with these programs by obtaining security interests in livestock suppliers’ assets. After analyzing residual credit risks and general market conditions, we have no allowance for these programs’ estimated uncollectible receivables at April 3, 2021, and October 3, 2020. When constructing new facilities or making major enhancements to existing facilities, we will occasionally enter into incentive agreements with local government agencies in order to reduce certain state and local tax expenditures. Certain arrangements may require cash to be deposited into a fund to cover future expenditures. These funds are generally considered restricted cash, which is reported in the Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheets in Other Assets, and totaled $15 million and $46 million at April 3, 2021 and October 3, 2020, respectively. Additionally, under certain agreements, we transfer the related assets to various local government entities and receive Industrial Revenue Bonds. We immediately lease the facilities from the local government entities and have an option to re-purchase the facilities for a nominal amount upon tendering the Industrial Revenue Bonds to the local government entities at various predetermined dates. The Industrial Revenue Bonds and the associated obligations for the leases of the facilities offset, and the underlying assets remain in property, plant and equipment. At April 3, 2021, the total amount under these types of arrangements totaled $620 million. Contingencies In the normal course of business, we are involved in various claims and legal proceedings. Each quarter, we assess the likelihood of adverse judgments or outcomes to those matters, as well as ranges of probable losses, to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. We record accruals in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements for matters to the extent that we conclude a loss is probable and the financial impact, should an adverse outcome occur, is reasonably estimable. Additionally, for matters in which losses are reasonably possible, no reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because, among other reasons: (i) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (ii) specific damages have not been sought; (iii) damage claims are unsupported and/or unreasonable; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (vi) novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories are being asserted. In our opinion, we have made appropriate and adequate accruals for these matters. Regardless of the manner of resolution, frequently the most significant changes in the status of a matter occur over a short time period, often following a lengthy period of little substantive activity. While these accruals reflect the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss for those matters as of the dates of those accruals, the recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of the losses for those matters. Listed below are certain claims made against the Company and/or our subsidiaries for which the potential exposure is considered material to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements. We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims made and intend to vigorously defend these matters. On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation (the “Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation”). Since the original filing, certain putative class members have opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions. The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs also allege that defendants “manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock.” The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. The parties have briefed the issue of class certification, and the defendants are scheduled to file summary judgment motions in late calendar year 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions in calendar year 2022. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified us that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division issued a grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all parties in the civil case. On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court granted in part. Subsequently, we received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the chicken industry. On June 2, 2020 a grand jury for the District of Colorado returned an indictment charging four individual executives employed by two other poultry processing companies with conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging in violation of federal antitrust laws. On June 10, 2020, we announced that we uncovered information in connection with the grand jury subpoena that we had previously self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully cooperating with the DOJ as part of our application for leniency under the DOJ's Corporate Leniency Program. On October 7, 2020, the DOJ announced a superseding indictment adding charges against six more individuals to charge a total of 10 executives and employees at poultry processing companies in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products from at least 2012 until at least early 2019. Plaintiffs in the civil action filed complaints or motions that expressly referenced the conduct in the DOJ’s indictments and argued that bid-rigging conduct was encompassed by prior complaints. On September 22, 2020, the court ruled that bid-rigging claims would be consolidated into the existing action but bifurcated from the original supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims. The original claims will proceed on their current schedule and the bid-rigging claims, including any related discovery, are stayed until the supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims are resolved. On January 19, 2021, we announced that we had reached agreement to settle all class claims related to the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation. Settlement terms were reached with the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff Class (collectively, the “Classes”). Under the terms of the settlements, we have agreed to pay the Classes an aggregate amount of $221.5 million in settlement of all outstanding claims brought by the Classes. On February 23, 2021 and March 22, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlements with the putative Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff Class, respectively. The settlement with the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class remains subject to court approval. The foregoing settlements do not settle claims made by plaintiffs who opt out of the Classes in the Broiler Antitrust Civil Litigation. In the first quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company recorded an aggregate legal contingency accrual of $320 million for the above-referenced settlements and to resolve the remaining claims brought by opt-out plaintiffs. We are currently pursuing settlement discussions with the opt-out plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims. While we do not admit any liability as part of the settlements, we believe that the settlements were in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. On September 1, 2020, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico filed a complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies and Agri Stats, Inc., an information services provider (“Agri Stats”), in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The complaint alleges violations of New Mexico’s antitrust, unfair trade practice, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations of conspiracies to manipulate the Georgia Dock, exchange information and reduce the supply of broiler chickens. On February 1, 2021, we and our poultry subsidiaries, as well as the majority of the other defendants, filed answers to this complaint. We are currently waiting for discovery to commence. On February 22, 2021, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska filed a complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies and Agri Stats, in Anchorage, Alaska. The complaint alleges violations of Alaska’s antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws based on allegations of conspiracies to manipulate the Georgia Dock, exchange information and reduce the supply of broiler chickens. On March 1, 2017, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) from the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, of the State of Florida. The Florida CID requests information primarily related to possible anticompetitive conduct in connection with the Georgia Dock. We have been cooperating with the Florida Attorney General’s office. In July 2019, the Attorney General issued a subpoena to the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation plaintiffs requesting all information provided to the DOJ. On August 18, 2019, we were advised that the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation plaintiffs had received a CID from the Louisiana Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General Public Protection Division. The Louisiana CID requests all deposition transcripts related to the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. In February 2021, we received a CID from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana. This Louisiana CID requests information primarily related to possible anticompetitive conduct or violations of state consumer protection laws in connection with the broiler chicken market. We have been cooperating with the Louisiana’s Attorney General’s office. On August 6, 2020, we received a CID from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Washington. The Washington CID requests information primarily related to possible anticompetitive conduct or violations of state consumer protection laws in connection with the broiler chicken market. We have been cooperating with the Washington's Attorney General’s office. On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services “with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants “agreed to share detailed data on [g]rower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing [g]rower compensation below competitive levels.” The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative class. We and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2017, and that motion was denied on January 6, 2020. Additional named plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints in federal district courts in North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and California. On October 6, 2020, the named plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) to transfer and consolidate all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On December 15, 2020, the JPML granted the plaintiffs’ motion and consolidated all actions in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The parties are now conducting discovery. On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who indirectly purchased pork filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our pork subsidiaries, as well as several other pork processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. Since the original filing, putative class members have filed individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws, and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees on behalf of the putative classes. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us, certain of our subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws. This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. We moved to dismiss the amended complaints, and on October 16, 2020, the court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ federal antitrust claims. The parties are now conducting discovery. On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against us and our beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis, importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand, and closing and idling plants. In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district courts. All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation. Following the filing of defendants’ motion to dismiss this matter, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4, 2019. We moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court granted on September 28, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 18, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against us, other beef packers, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2019. We moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al. Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef. On September 28, 2020, the court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints. On February 18, 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement, acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint against us and certain of our subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. An additional complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily Earnest. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Following the consolidation, two additional lawsuits were filed by individuals making similar allegations, and others may do so in the future. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants and named additional defendants. We moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against Tyson and certain other defendants without prejudice because the complaint improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The court otherwise denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and sustained claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange information against five other defendants. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address the impermissible group pleading. On October 16, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint reasserting their claims. On December 18, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss certain claims in the second amended complaint. On March 10, 2021, the court denied the defendants’ motion. On April 7, 2021, we and the other defendants answered the second amended complaint. The parties are now conducting discovery. Our subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint was filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the “respondents”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines in 1995 by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company. In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately U.S. $71 million) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC’s decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several years. While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately U.S. $7 million). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents’ settlement motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC’s December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases were remanded back before the NLRC to rule on the merits of the case. On December 15, 2016, we learned that the NLRC rendered its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents’ appeals regarding the labor arbiter’s 2004 ruling in favor of the complainants. The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total 5,984 complainants to PHP14,858,495,937 (approximately U.S. $306 million). However, the NLRC approved a prior settlement reached with the group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed to pay each settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately U.S. $1,400). The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC, which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the award on July 24, 2017. Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and sought an injunction to preclude enforcement of the award to the Philippines Court of Appeals. On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC award during the pendency of the appeal. The Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the NLRC’s award on April 12, 2018. Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied claimants’ motions for reconsideration and granted defendants’ motion to release and discharge the preliminary injunction bond. Claimants have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has accepted the case for review. We continue to maintain an accrual for this matter. Various claims have been asserted against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its officers and agents by, and on behalf of, team members who claim to have contracted COVID-19 in our facilities.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration