XML 65 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Cotai Development and Land Concession Contract The Company is currently constructing Wynn Palace, a fully integrated resort containing a 1,700-room hotel, performance lake, meeting space, casino, spa, retail and food and beverage outlets. In September 2011, Wynn Resorts (Macau) S.A. and Palo Real Estate Company Limited (“Palo”), each an indirect subsidiary of Wynn Macau Limited, formally accepted the terms and conditions of a draft land concession contract from the Macau government for approximately 51 acres of land in the Cotai area of Macau. On May 2, 2012, the land concession contract was gazetted by the government of Macau evidencing the final step in the granting of the land concession. The initial term of the land concession contract is 25 years from May 2, 2012, and it may be renewed with government approval for successive periods. The total land premium payable, including interest as required by the land concession contract, is $193.4 million. An initial payment of $62.5 million was paid in December 2011, with eight additional semi-annual payments of approximately $16.4 million each (which includes interest at 5%) due beginning November 2012. As of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company has recorded this obligation and related asset with $29.3 million included as a current liability and $46.8 million included as a long-term liability. The Company is also required to make annual lease payments of $0.8 million during the resort construction period and annual payments of approximately $1.1 million once the development is completed. On July 29, 2013, Wynn Macau, S.A. and Palo finalized and executed a guaranteed maximum price construction (“GMP”) contract with Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, acting as the general contractor. Under the GMP contract, the general contractor is responsible for both the design and construction of the Wynn Palace project. The general contractor is obligated to substantially complete the project in the first half of 2016 for a guaranteed maximum price of HK$20 billion (approximately US$2.57 billion). An early completion bonus for achievement of substantial completion on or before January 25, 2016 will be paid to the general contractor if certain conditions are satisfied under the GMP contract. Both the contract time and guaranteed maximum price are subject to further adjustment under certain specified conditions. The performance of the general contractor is backed by a full completion guarantee given by Leighton Holdings Limited, the parent company of the general contractor, as well as a performance bond for 5% of the guaranteed maximum price. As of March 31, 2014, the Company incurred approximately $866.7 million of the $4.0 billion in total project budget costs. The total project budget includes all construction costs, capitalized interest, pre-opening expenses, land costs and financing fees. The Company continues to remain on schedule for an opening in the first half of 2016. Litigation In addition to the actions noted below, the Company’s affiliates are involved in litigation arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, such litigation is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Atlantic-Pacific Capital On May 3, 2010, Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Inc. (“APC”) filed an arbitration demand with JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution provider, regarding an agreement with the Company. The action concerns a claim for compensation pursuant to an agreement entered into between APC and the Company on or about March 30, 2009, whereby APC was engaged to raise private equity capital for a specific investment vehicle to be sponsored by the Company. The investment vehicle was never formed. The Company has denied APC’s claims for compensation. After APC's demand in early 2010, the Company filed a Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief against APC in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, on May 10, 2010, which APC removed to the United States District Court, District of Nevada. In March 2011, the District Court denied APC’s motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the action. APC appealed, and on November 13, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and compelled arbitration. The arbitration hearing took place during April 2014. The Arbitrator ordered the submission of post-hearing briefs, with the final brief due on or before June 12, 2014, and is expected to enter a decision within 30 days thereafter. Management maintains its belief that APC’s claims against the Company are without merit, and the Company intends to continue to defend this matter vigorously. Determination of Unsuitability and Redemption of Aruze USA, Inc. and Affiliates On February 18, 2012, Wynn Resorts’ Gaming Compliance Committee received an independent report by Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, LLP (the “Freeh Report”) detailing a pattern of misconduct by Aruze USA, Inc. (at the time a stockholder of Wynn Resorts), Universal Entertainment Corporation (Aruze USA, Inc.’s parent company), and Kazuo Okada (the majority shareholder of Universal Entertainment Corporation and a former member of the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts and Wynn Macau, Limited) (collectively, the “Okada Parties”). The factual record presented in the Freeh Report included evidence that the Okada Parties had provided valuable items to certain foreign gaming officials who were responsible for regulating gaming in a jurisdiction in which entities controlled by Mr. Okada were developing a gaming resort. Mr. Okada denied the impropriety of such conduct to members of the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts and, while serving as one of the Company’s directors, Mr. Okada refused to acknowledge or abide by Wynn Resorts’ anti-bribery policies and refused to participate in the training all other directors received concerning these policies. Based on the Freeh Report, the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts determined that the Okada Parties are “unsuitable persons” under Article VII of the Company’s articles of incorporation. The Board of Directors was unanimous (other than Mr. Okada) in its determination. After authorizing the redemption of the Aruze shares, as discussed below, the Board of Directors took certain actions to protect the Company and its operations from any influence of an unsuitable person, including placing limitations on the provision of certain operating information to unsuitable persons and formation of an Executive Committee of the Board to manage the business and affairs of the Company during the period between each annual meeting. The Charter of the Executive Committee provides that “Unsuitable Persons” are not permitted to serve on the Committee. All members of the Board, other than Mr. Okada, were appointed to the Executive Committee on February 18, 2012. The Board of Directors also requested that Mr. Okada resign as a director of Wynn Resorts (under Nevada corporation law, a board of directors does not have the power to remove a director) and recommended that Mr. Okada be removed as a member of the Board of Directors of Wynn Macau, Limited. On February 18, 2012, Mr. Okada was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Las Vegas Capital Corp., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Wynn Resorts. On February 24, 2012, Mr. Okada was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Macau, Limited and on February 22, 2013, he was removed from the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts by a stockholder vote in which 99.6% of the over 86 million shares voted were cast in favor of removal. Mr. Okada resigned from the Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts on February 21, 2013. Although the Company has retained the structure of the Executive Committee, the Board has resumed its past role in managing the business and affairs of the Company. Based on the Board of Directors’ finding of “unsuitability,” on February 18, 2012, Wynn Resorts redeemed and canceled Aruze USA, Inc.’s 24,549,222 shares of Wynn Resorts’ common stock. Following a finding of “unsuitability,” Article VII of Wynn Resorts’ articles of incorporation authorizes redemption at “fair value” of the shares held by unsuitable persons. The Company engaged an independent financial adviser to assist in the fair value calculation and concluded that a discount to the then current trading price was appropriate because of, among other things, restrictions on most of the shares held by Aruze USA, Inc. under the terms of the Stockholders Agreement (as defined below). Pursuant to its articles of incorporation, Wynn Resorts issued the Redemption Note to Aruze USA, Inc. in redemption of the shares. The Redemption Note has a principal amount of $1.94 billion, matures on February 18, 2022, and bears interest at the rate of 2% per annum, payable annually in arrears on each anniversary of the date of the Redemption Note. The Company may, in its sole and absolute discretion, at any time and from time to time, and without penalty or premium, prepay the whole or any portion of the principal or interest due under the Redemption Note. In no instance shall any payment obligation under the Redemption Note be accelerated except in the sole and absolute discretion of Wynn Resorts or as specifically mandated by law. The indebtedness evidenced by the Redemption Note is and shall be subordinated in right of payment, to the extent and in the manner provided in the Redemption Note, to the prior payment in full of all existing and future obligations of Wynn Resorts or any of its affiliates in respect of indebtedness for borrowed money of any kind or nature. The Company provided the Freeh Report to appropriate regulators and law enforcement agencies and has been cooperating with related investigations that such regulators and agencies have undertaken. The conduct of the Okada Parties and any resulting regulatory investigations could have adverse consequences to the Company and its subsidiaries. A finding by regulatory authorities that Mr. Okada violated anti-corruption statutes and/or other laws or regulations applicable to persons affiliated with a gaming licensee on Company property and/or otherwise involved the Company in criminal or civil violations could result in actions by regulatory authorities against the Company and its subsidiaries. Redemption Action and Counterclaim On February 19, 2012, Wynn Resorts filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada against the Okada Parties (as amended, the “Complaint”), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and related claims (the “Redemption Action”) arising from the activities addressed in the Freeh Report. The Company is seeking compensatory and special damages as well as a declaration that it acted lawfully and in full compliance with its articles of incorporation, bylaws and other governing documents in redeeming and canceling the shares of Aruze, USA, Inc. On March 12, 2012, the Okada Parties removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the action was subsequently remanded to Nevada state court). On that same date, the Okada Parties filed an answer denying the claims and a counterclaim (as amended, the “Counterclaim”) that purports to assert claims against the Company, each of the members of the Company’s Board of Directors (other than Mr. Okada) and Wynn Resorts’ General Counsel (the “Wynn Parties”). The Counterclaim alleges, among other things: (1) that the shares of Wynn Resorts common stock owned by Aruze USA, Inc. were exempt from the redemption-for-unsuitability provisions in the Wynn Resorts articles of incorporation (the “Articles”) pursuant to certain agreements executed in 2002; (2) that the Wynn Resorts directors who authorized the redemption of Aruze USA, Inc.’s shares acted at the direction of Stephen A. Wynn and did not independently and objectively evaluate the Okada Parties’ suitability, and by so doing, breached their fiduciary duties; (3) that the Wynn Resorts directors violated the terms of the Wynn Resorts Articles by failing to pay Aruze USA, Inc. fair value for the redeemed shares; and (4) that the terms of the Redemption Note that Aruze USA, Inc. received in exchange for the redeemed shares, including the Redemption Note’s principal amount, duration, interest rate, and subordinated status, were unconscionable. Among other relief, the Counterclaim seeks a declaration that the redemption of Aruze USA, Inc.’s shares was void, an injunction restoring Aruze USA, Inc.’s share ownership, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission of the Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated as of January 6, 2010, by and among Aruze USA, Inc., Stephen A. Wynn, and Elaine Wynn (the “Stockholders Agreement”). On June 19, 2012, Elaine Wynn asserted a cross claim against Stephen A. Wynn and Aruze USA, Inc. seeking a declaration that (1) any and all of Elaine Wynn’s duties under the Stockholders Agreement be discharged; (2) the Stockholders Agreement is subject to rescission and is rescinded; (3) the Stockholders Agreement is an unreasonable restraint on alienation in violation of public policy; and/or (4) the restrictions on sale of shares shall be construed as inapplicable to Elaine Wynn. The indentures for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's 7 7/8% first mortgage notes due 2020, 7 3/4% first mortgage notes due 2020 (together, the "2020 Indentures") and the indenture for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's 4 1/4% Senior Notes due 2023 (the "2023 Indenture," and, together with the 2020 Indentures, the "Indentures") provide that if Stephen A. Wynn, together with certain related parties, in the aggregate beneficially owns a lesser percentage of the outstanding common stock of the Company than are beneficially owned by any other person, a change of control will have occurred. The indentures for Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's 5 3/8% first mortgage notes due 2022 (the "2022 Indenture") provides that if any event constitutes a "change of control" under the 2020 Indentures, it will constitute a change of control under the 2022 Indenture. If Elaine Wynn prevails in her cross claim, Stephen A. Wynn would not beneficially own or control Elaine Wynn’s shares and a change in control may result under the Wynn Las Vegas debt documents. Under the 2020 Indentures and the 2022 Indenture, the occurrence of a change of control requires that the Company make an offer to each holder to repurchase all or any part of such holder’s notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest on the notes purchased, if any, to the date of repurchase (unless the notes have been previously called for redemption). Under the 2023 Indenture, if a change of control occurs and within 60 days after that occurrence the 4 1/4% Senior Notes due 2023 are rated below investment grade by both rating agencies that rate such notes, the Company is required to make an offer to each holder to repurchase all or any part of such holder’s notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest on the notes purchased, if any, to the date of repurchase (unless the notes have been previously called for redemption). Mr. Wynn is opposing Ms. Wynn’s cross claim. The Company’s Complaint and the Okada Parties’ Counterclaim have been, and continue to be, challenged through motion practice. At a hearing held on November 13, 2012, the Nevada state court granted the Wynn Parties’ motion to dismiss the Counterclaim with respect to the Okada Parties’ claim under the Nevada Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with respect to certain Company executives but otherwise denied the motion. At a hearing held on January 15, 2013, the court denied the Okada Parties’ motion to dismiss the Company’s Complaint. On April 22, 2013, the Company filed a second amended complaint. On August 30, 2013, the Okada Parties filed their third amended Counterclaim. On September 18, 2013, the Company filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss related to a claim in the third amended Counterclaim alleging civil extortion by Mr. Wynn and the Company’s General Counsel. On October 29, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the claim. On November 26, 2013, the Okada Parties filed their fourth amended Counterclaim, and the Company filed an answer to that pleading on December 16, 2013. On each of February 14, 2013, and February 13, 2014, the Company issued a check to Aruze USA, Inc. in the amount of $38.7 million, representing the interest payments due on the Redemption Note at those times. However, those checks were not cashed. The parties engaged in discussions regarding the terms of an escrow agreement in accordance with a prior court order. However, in February 2014, the Okada Parties advised of their intent to deposit any checks for interest and principal, past and future, due under the terms of the Redemption Note to the Clerk of the Court for deposit into the Clerk’s Trust Account. On March 17, 2014, the parties stipulated that the checks be returned to the Company for reissue in the same amounts, payable to the Clerk of the Court for deposit into the Clerk's Trust Account. Pursuant to the stipulation, on March 20, 2014, the Company delivered to the Clerk of the Court the reissued checks for deposit into the Clerk's Trust Account and filed a Notice with the Court with respect to the same. On April 8, 2013, the United States Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion to Intervene and for Temporary and Partial Stay of Discovery in the Redemption Action. The parties had been engaged in discovery at the time of the filing. The motion stated that the federal government has been conducting a criminal investigation of the Okada Parties involving the “same underlying allegations of misconduct-that is, potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act and related fraudulent conduct-that form the basis of” the Company’s complaint, as amended, in the Redemption Action. The motion sought to stay all discovery in the Redemption Action related to the Okada Parties’ allegedly unlawful activities in connection with their casino project in the Philippines until the conclusion of the criminal investigation and any resulting criminal prosecution, with an interim status update to the court in six months. At a hearing on May 2, 2013, the court granted the motion and ordered that all discovery in the Redemption Action be stayed for a period of six months (the “Stay”). On May 30, 2013, Elaine Wynn filed a motion for partial relief from the Stay, to allow her to conduct limited discovery related to her cross and counterclaims. The Wynn Parties opposed the motion so as to not interfere with the United States government’s investigation. At a hearing on August 1, 2013, the court denied the motion. On October 29, 2013, the United States Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion to Extend the Stay for a further period of six months. At a hearing on October 31, 2013, the court granted the requested extension based upon an affidavit provided under seal that outlined, among other things, concerns for witness safety. The court did, however, order the parties to exchange written discovery propounded prior to May 2, 2013, including discovery related to the Elaine Wynn cross and counterclaims referred to above. The extended Stay expired on May 5, 2014. On April 29, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Motion for a Second Extension of Temporary Stay of Discovery for a further six months. At a hearing on May 1, 2014, the court denied the motion. The Company will continue to vigorously pursue its claims against the Okada Parties, and the Company and the Wynn Parties will continue to vigorously defend against the counterclaims asserted against them. The Company’s claims and the Okada Parties’ counterclaims remain in an early stage and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. An adverse judgment or settlement involving payment of a material amount could cause a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Litigation Commenced by Kazuo Okada Japan Action: On August 28, 2012, Mr. Okada, Universal Entertainment Corporation and Okada Holdings (“Okada Japan Parties”) filed a complaint in Tokyo District Court against the Company, all members of the Board of Directors (other than Mr. Okada) and the Company’s General Counsel (the “Wynn Parties”), alleging that the press release issued by the Company with respect to the redemption has damaged plaintiffs’ social evaluation and credibility. The Okada Japan Parties seek damages and legal fees from the Wynn Parties. After asking the Okada Japan Parties to clarify the allegations in their complaint, the Wynn Parties objected to the jurisdiction of the Japanese court. On April 30, 2013, the Wynn Parties filed a memorandum in support of their jurisdictional position. On October 21, 2013, the court dismissed the action on jurisdictional grounds. On November 1, 2013, the Okada Japan Parties filed an appeal moving the matter to the Tokyo High Court. On April 24, 2014, a hearing took place, with a decision on the appeal expected in June, 2014. Indemnification Action: On March 20, 2013, Mr. Okada filed a complaint against the Company in Nevada state court for indemnification under the Company’s Articles, bylaws and agreements with its directors. The complaint sought advancement of Mr. Okada’s costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees) incurred pursuant to the various legal proceedings and related regulatory investigations described above. The Company’s answer and counterclaim was filed on April 15, 2013. The counterclaim named each of the Okada Parties as defendants and sought indemnification under the Company’s Articles for costs and expenses (including attorney’s fees) incurred pursuant to the various legal proceedings and related regulatory investigations described above. On April 30, 2013, Mr. Okada filed his reply to the counterclaim. On February 4, 2014, the court entered an order on the parties’ stipulation that: (1) dismissed all claims Mr. Okada asserted against the Company; (2) reserved Mr. Okada’s right to assert, in the future, any claims for indemnity following the resolution of the Redemption Action; and (3) stayed the claims asserted by the Company against Mr. Okada pending the resolution of the Redemption Action. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this action or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Related Investigations and Derivative Litigation Investigations: In the U.S. Department of Justice’s Motion to Intervene and for Temporary and Partial Stay of Discovery in the Redemption Action, the Department of Justice states in a footnote that the government also has been conducting a criminal investigation into the Company’s donation to the University of Macau discussed above. The Company has not received any target letter or subpoena in connection with such an investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the government in response to any inquiry related to the donation to the University of Macau. Other regulators may pursue separate investigations into the Company’s compliance with applicable laws arising from the allegations in the matters described above and in response to the Counterclaim and other litigation filed by Mr. Okada suggesting improprieties in connection with the Company’s donation to the University of Macau. While the Company believes that it is in full compliance with all applicable laws, any such investigations could result in actions by regulators against the Company. Prior investigations by the Nevada Gaming Control Board and SEC were closed with no actions taken. Derivative Claims: Six derivative actions were commenced against the Company and all members of its Board of Directors: four in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, and two in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The four federal actions brought by the following plaintiffs have been consolidated: (1) The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, (2) Maryanne Solak, (3) Excavators Union Local 731 Welfare Fund, and (4) Boilermakers Lodge No. 154 Retirement Fund (collectively, the “Federal Plaintiffs”). The Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on August 6, 2012, asserting claims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) waste of corporate assets; (3) injunctive relief; and (4) unjust enrichment. The claims were against the Company and all Company directors, including Mr. Okada, however, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Mr. Okada as a defendant in this consolidated action on September 27, 2012. The Federal Plaintiffs claimed that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted assets by: (a) failing to ensure the Company’s officers and directors complied with federal and state laws and the Company’s Code of Conduct; (b) voting to allow the Company’s subsidiary to make the donation to the University of Macau; and (c) redeeming Aruze USA, Inc.’s stock such that the Company incurs the debt associated with the redemption. The Federal Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution in the form of disgorgement, reformation of corporate governance procedures, an injunction against all future payments related to the donation/pledge, and all fees (attorneys, accountants, and experts) and costs. The directors responded to the consolidated complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On February 1, 2013, the federal court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead adequately the futility of a pre-suit demand on the Board. The dismissal was without prejudice to the Federal Plaintiffs’ ability to file a motion within 30 days seeking leave to file an amended complaint. On April 9, 2013, the Federal Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The Company and the directors filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 23, 2013. On March 13, 2014, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the Company and directors and against the Federal Plaintiffs without prejudice. On April 10, 2014, the Federal plaintiff's filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The two state court actions brought by the following plaintiffs have also been consolidated: (1) IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and (2) Danny Hinson (collectively, the “State Plaintiffs”). Through a coordination of efforts by all parties, the directors and the Company (a nominal defendant) have been served in all of the actions. The State Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 20, 2012 asserting claims for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) abuse of control; (3) gross mismanagement; and (4) unjust enrichment. The claims are against the Company and all Company directors, including Mr. Okada, as well as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, who signs financial disclosures filed with the SEC. The State Plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants failed to disclose to the Company’s stockholders the investigation into, and the dispute with director Okada as well as the alleged potential violations of the FCPA related to, the University of Macau Development Foundation donation. The State Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages (compensatory and punitive), disgorgement, reformation of corporate governance procedures, an order directing the Company to internally investigate the donation, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 13, 2012, the court entered the parties’ stipulation providing for a stay of the state derivative action for 90 days, subject to the parties’ obligation to monitor the progress of the pending litigation, discussed above, between Wynn Resorts (among others) and Mr. Okada (among others). Per the stipulation, Wynn Resorts and the individual defendants were not required to respond to the consolidated complaint while the stay remained in effect. Following the expiration of the stay, the State Plaintiffs advised the Company and the individual defendants that they intended to resume the action by filing an amended complaint, which they did, on April 26, 2013. The Company and directors filed their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2013. However, on July 31, 2013, the parties agreed to a stipulation that was submitted to, and approved by the court. The stipulation contemplates a stay of the consolidated state court derivative action of equal duration as the Stay entered by the court in the Redemption Action. On February 5, 2014, the court entered a new stipulation between the parties that provides for a further stay of the state derivative action and directs the parties, within 30 days of the conclusion of the Stay in the Redemption Action, to discuss how the state derivative action should proceed and to file a joint report with the court. The individual defendants are vigorously defending against the claims pleaded against them in the state derivative action. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this action or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any.

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