XML 49 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Financial Commitments The Company provides indemnifications and other guarantees in the ordinary course of business, the terms of which range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. Specifically, the Company is occasionally required to provide letters of credit and bid and performance bonds to various customers, principally to act as security for retention levels related to casualty insurance policies and to guarantee the performance of subsidiaries that engage in export and domestic transactions. At March 31, 2019, the Company had outstanding performance and financial standby letters of credit, as well as outstanding bid and performance bonds, aggregating to $19.1 million. If any such letters of credit or bonds are called, the Company would be obligated to reimburse the issuer of the letter of credit or bond. The Company believes the likelihood of any currently outstanding letter of credit or bond being called is remote. The Company has transactions involving the sale of equipment to certain of its customers which include (i) guarantees to repurchase the equipment for a fixed price at a future date and (ii) guarantees to repurchase the equipment from the third-party lender in the event of default by the customer. As of March 31, 2019, the single year and maximum potential cash payments the Company could be required to make to repurchase equipment under these agreements were $4.0 million and $4.7 million, respectively. The Company’s risk under these repurchase arrangements would be partially mitigated by the value of the products repurchased as part of the transaction. Further, pursuant to the terms of the June 3, 2016 acquisition of JJE, the former owners of JJE have agreed to reimburse the Company for certain losses incurred resulting from the requirement to repurchase equipment that was sold prior to the acquisition date. Any such reimbursement would be withheld from the C$8.0 million deferred payment to be made to the former owners of JJE on the third anniversary of the acquisition date. Historical cash requirements and losses associated with these obligations have not been significant, but could increase if customer defaults exceed current expectations. Product Warranties The Company issues product performance warranties to customers with the sale of its products. The specific terms and conditions of these warranties vary depending upon the product sold and country in which the Company does business, with warranty periods generally ranging from one to five years. The Company estimates the costs that may be incurred under its basic limited warranty and records a liability in the amount of such costs at the time the sale of the related product is recognized. Factors that affect the Company’s warranty liability include (i) the number of units under warranty, (ii) historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and (iii) costs per claim. The Company periodically assesses the adequacy of its recorded warranty liabilities and adjusts the amounts as necessary. The following table summarizes the changes in the Company’s warranty liabilities during the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018:
(in millions) | 2019 |  | 2018
Balance at January 1 | $ | 9.8 |  |  | $ | 8.4 |
Provisions to expense | 1.3 |  |  | 1.5 |
Payments | (1.5 | ) |  | (1.5 | )
Balance at March 31 | $ | 9.6 |  |  | $ | 8.4 |
As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, an estimated liability was recorded within the Environmental Solutions Group in connection with a specific warranty matter. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s estimate may change in the near term as more information becomes available; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or liquidity. Liabilities of Discontinued Operations The Company retains certain liabilities for operations discontinued in prior periods, primarily for environmental remediation and product liability. Included in liabilities of discontinued operations on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, were reserves of $0.3 million and $0.4 million, respectively, related to environmental remediation at the Pearland, Texas facility previously used by the Company’s discontinued Pauluhn business, and $1.1 million and $1.1 million, respectively, related to estimated product liability obligations of the discontinued North American refuse truck body business. Legal Proceedings The Company is subject to various claims, including pending and possible legal actions for product liability and other damages, and other matters arising in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. On a quarterly basis, the Company reviews uninsured material legal claims against the Company and accrues for the costs of such claims as appropriate in the exercise of management’s best judgment and experience. However, due to a lack of factual information available to the Company about a claim, or the procedural stage of a claim, it may not be possible for the Company to reasonably assess either the probability of a favorable or unfavorable outcome of the claim or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss should there be an unfavorable outcome. Therefore, for many claims, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss. The Company believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such claims and actions will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of such matters, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flow. Hearing Loss Litigation The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who claim that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs. The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs’ claims occurred in 2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company. An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for trial in 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel later moved to reduce the number of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected this appeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which resulted in final dismissal of these cases. A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this trial. Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the Company’s petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s certification order. Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December 2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012, the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company. Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company’s objection, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on March 11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10, 2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class certification order. On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the Appellate Court determined that the trial court’s ruling failed to satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the firefighters’ claims predominate over the individual issues and that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters on the issue of whether the Company’s sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motions to amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed lawsuits in this matter. The Company has served discovery upon plaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue its objections to any attempt at certification. The court has scheduled a hearing regarding discovery issues in this case on May 21, 2019. The Company has also filed motions to dismiss cases involving firefighters who worked for fire departments located outside of the State of Illinois based on improper venue. On February 24, 2017, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered orders dismissing the cases of 1,770 such firefighter plaintiffs from the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois. Pursuant to these orders, these plaintiffs had six months thereafter to refile their cases in jurisdictions where these firefighters are located. Prior to this six-month deadline, attorneys representing some of these plaintiffs contacted the Company regarding possible settlement of their cases. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company entered into a global settlement agreement with two attorneys who represented approximately 1,090 of these plaintiffs. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company offered $700 per plaintiff to settle these cases and 717 plaintiffs accepted this offer as a final settlement. The attorneys representing these plaintiffs agreed to withdraw from representing plaintiffs who did not respond to the settlement offer. It is the Company’s position that the non-settling plaintiffs who failed to timely refile their cases following the February 2017 dismissal by the Circuit Court of Cook County are now barred from doing so by the statute of limitations. The Company also has filed a venue motion seeking to transfer to DuPage County cases involving 10 plaintiffs who reside and work in Illinois but outside of Cook County. The Court granted this motion on June 28, 2017. The Company has also been sued on this issue outside of the Cook County, Illinois venue. Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 71 lawsuits involving 71 plaintiffs were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Three of these cases were dismissed pursuant to pretrial motions filed by the Company. Another case was voluntarily dismissed. Prior to trial in four cases, the Company paid nominal sums to obtain dismissals. Three trials occurred in Philadelphia involving these cases filed in 2007 through 2009. The first trial involving one of these plaintiffs occurred in 2010, when the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. In particular, the jury found that the Company’s siren was not defectively designed, but that the Company negligently constructed the siren. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $0.1 million, which was subsequently reduced to $0.08 million. The Company appealed this verdict. Another trial, involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, also occurred in 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. The third trial, also involving nine Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs, was completed during 2010 when the jury returned a defense verdict for the Company as to all claims and all plaintiffs involved in that trial. Following defense verdicts in the last two Philadelphia trials, the Company negotiated settlements with respect to all remaining filed cases in Philadelphia at that time, as well as other firefighter claimants represented by the attorney who filed the Philadelphia cases. On January 4, 2011, the Company entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the law firm of the attorney representing the Philadelphia claimants, on behalf of 1,125 claimants the firm represented (the “Claimants”) and who had asserted product claims against the Company (the “Claims”). Three hundred eight of the Claimants had lawsuits pending against the Company in Cook County, Illinois. The Settlement Agreement provided that the Company pay a total amount of $3.8 million (the “Settlement Payment”) to settle the Claims (including the costs, fees and other expenses of the law firm in connection with its representation of the Claimants), subject to certain terms, conditions and procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. In order for the Company to be required to make the Settlement Payment: (i) each Claimant who agreed to settle his or her claims had to sign a release acceptable to the Company (a “Release”), (ii) each Claimant who agreed to the settlement and who was a plaintiff in a lawsuit, had to dismiss his or her lawsuit with prejudice, (iii) by April 29, 2011, at least 93% of the Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement must have agreed to settle their claims and provide a signed Release to the Company and (iv) the law firm had to withdraw from representing any Claimants who did not agree to the settlement, including those who filed lawsuits. If the conditions to the settlement were met, but less than 100% of the Claimants agreed to settle their Claims and sign a Release, the Settlement Payment would be reduced by the percentage of Claimants who did not agree to the settlement. On April 22, 2011, the Company confirmed that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement had been met and made a payment of $3.6 million to conclude the settlement. The amount was based upon the Company’s receipt of 1,069 signed releases provided by Claimants, which was 95% of all Claimants identified in the Settlement Agreement. The Company generally denies the allegations made in the claims and lawsuits by the Claimants and denies that its products caused any injuries to the Claimants. Nonetheless, the Company entered into the Settlement Agreement for the purpose of minimizing its expenses, including legal fees, and avoiding the inconvenience, uncertainty and distraction of the claims and lawsuits. During April through October 2012, 20 new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases were filed on behalf of 20 Philadelphia firefighters and involve various defendants in addition to the Company. Five of these cases were subsequently dismissed. The first trial involving these 2012 Philadelphia cases occurred during December 2014 and involved three firefighter plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. Following this trial, all of the parties agreed to settle cases involving seven firefighter plaintiffs set for trial during January 2015 for nominal amounts per plaintiff. In January 2015, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed two new complaints in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on behalf of approximately 70 additional firefighter plaintiffs. The vast majority of the firefighters identified in these complaints are located outside of Pennsylvania. One of the complaints in these cases, which involves 11 firefighter plaintiffs from the District of Columbia, was removed to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims in this case on May 31, 2016. The Company thereafter moved to recover various fees and costs in this case, asserting that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to properly investigate these claims prior to filing suit. The Court granted this motion on April 25, 2017, awarding $0.1 million to the Company. After plaintiffs appealed this Order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court decision awarding fees and costs to the Company. With respect to claims of other out-of-state firefighters involved in these two cases, the Company moved to dismiss these claims as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. The Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims on November 5, 2015. During August through December 2015, another nine new cases were filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve a total of 193 firefighters, most of whom are located outside of Pennsylvania. The Company again moved to dismiss all claims filed by out-of-state firefighters in these cases as improperly filed in Pennsylvania. On May 24, 2016, the Court granted this motion and dismissed these claims. Plaintiffs appealed this decision and, on September 25, 2018, the appellate court reversed this dismissal. The Company has filed a petition with the appellate court requesting that the court reconsider its ruling. On December 7, 2018, the appellate court granted the Company’s petition and withdrew its prior decision. The Court has ordered that the parties file additional briefs and a new panel of appellate judges issue a decision. On May 13, 2016, four new cases were filed in Philadelphia state court, involving a total of 55 Philadelphia firefighters who live in Pennsylvania. During August 2016, the Company settled a case involving four Philadelphia firefighters that had been set for trial in Philadelphia state court during September 2016. During 2017, plaintiffs filed additional cases in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, involving over 100 Philadelphia firefighter plaintiffs. During January 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate, similar to a motion filed in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases, as described below. The Company has filed an opposition to this motion. These cases were then transferred to the mass tort program in Philadelphia for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs’ counsel thereafter dismissed several plaintiffs. During November 2017, a trial involving one Philadelphia firefighter occurred. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company in this trial. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, discussed below, there was a total of 75 firefighters involved in cases pending in the Philadelphia mass tort program. During April through July 2013, additional cases were filed in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 247 plaintiff firefighters from Pittsburgh and against various defendants, including the Company. During May 2016, two additional cases were filed against the Company in Allegheny County involving 19 Pittsburgh firefighters. After the Company filed pretrial motions, the Court dismissed claims of 55 Pittsburgh firefighter plaintiffs. The Court scheduled trials for May, September and November 2016, for eight firefighters per trial. Prior to the first scheduled trial in Pittsburgh, the Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims asserted by plaintiff firefighters involved in this trial. Following an appeal by the plaintiff firefighters, the appellate court affirmed this dismissal. The next trial for six Pittsburgh firefighters started on November 7, 2016. Shortly after this trial began, plaintiffs’ counsel moved for a mistrial because a key witness suddenly became unavailable. The Court granted this motion and rescheduled this trial for March 6, 2017. During January 2017, plaintiffs also moved to consolidate and bifurcate trials involving Pittsburgh firefighters. In particular, plaintiffs sought one trial involving liability issues which will apply to all Pittsburgh firefighters who filed suit against the Company. The Company filed an opposition to this motion. On April 18, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate the next Pittsburgh trial. Pursuant to a motion for clarification filed by the Company, the Court ruled that the bifurcation order would only apply to six plaintiffs who were part of the next trial group in Pittsburgh. The Company thereafter sought an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s bifurcation order. The appellate court declined to accept the appeal at that time. A bifurcated trial began on September 27, 2017 in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Prior to and during trial, two plaintiffs were dismissed, resulting in four plaintiffs remaining for trial. After approximately two weeks of trial, the jury found that the Company’s siren product was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and rendered a verdict in favor of the Company. A second trial involving Pittsburgh firefighters began during January 2018. At the outset of this trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys requested that the Company consider settlement of various cases. This trial was continued to allow the parties to further discuss possible settlement. During March 2018, the parties agreed in principle on a framework to resolve hearing loss claims and cases in all jurisdictions involved in the hearing loss litigation except in Cook County and Lackawanna County, and excluding one case involving one firefighter in New York City. The firefighters excluded from this settlement framework are represented by different attorneys. Pursuant to this settlement framework, the Company would pay $700 to each firefighter who has filed a lawsuit and is eligible to be part of the settlement. The Company would pay $300 to each firefighter who has not yet filed a case and is eligible to be part of the settlement. To be eligible for settlement, among other things, firefighters must provide proof that they have high frequency noise-induced hearing loss. There are approximately 3,700 firefighters whose claims may be considered as part of this settlement, including approximately 1,320 firefighters who have ongoing filed lawsuits. The parties are in the process of determining how many of these firefighters will be eligible to participate in the settlement. In order to minimize the parties’ respective legal costs and expenses during this settlement process, on July 5, 2018, the parties entered into a tolling agreement (the “Tolling Agreement”). Pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, counsel for the settling firefighters agreed to dismiss the pending lawsuits in all jurisdictions except for the Allegheny County (Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania cases, and the Company agreed to a tolling of any statute of limitations applicable to the dismissed cases until May 13, 2019. The settlement framework will require plaintiffs’ attorneys to withdraw from representing firefighters who elect not to participate in this settlement. As of March 31, 2019, the Company has recognized an estimated liability for the potential settlement amount. While it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of this matter may result in a loss in excess of the amount accrued, the incremental loss is not expected to be material. During March 2014, an action also was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania on behalf of 61 firefighters. This case likewise involves various defendants in addition to the Company. After the Company filed pretrial motions, 33 Erie County firefighter plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. During August 2017, five cases involving 70 firefighter plaintiffs were filed in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. These cases involve firefighter plaintiffs who originally filed in Cook County and were dismissed pursuant to the Company’s forum nonconveniens motion. As of March 31, 2019, a total of 263 firefighters are involved in cases filed in Allegheny and Lackawanna counties in Pennsylvania. On September 17, 2014, 20 lawsuits, involving a total of 193 Buffalo Fire Department firefighters, were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County. All of the cases filed in Erie County, New York have been removed to federal court in the Western District of New York. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate these cases, similar to the motion filed in the Pittsburgh hearing loss cases, as described above. The Company has filed an opposition to the motion. During February 2015, a lawsuit involving one New York City firefighter plaintiff was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff named the Company as well as several other parties as defendants. That case subsequently was transferred to federal court in the Northern District of New York and thereafter dismissed. During April 2015 through January 2016, 29 new cases involving a total of 235 firefighters were filed in various counties in the New York City area. During December 2016 through October 2017, additional cases were filed in these jurisdictions. On February 5, 2018, the Company was served with a complaint in an additional case filed in Kings County, New York. This case involves one plaintiff. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, there was a total of 536 firefighters involved in cases filed in the State of New York. During November 2015, the Company was served with a complaint filed in Union County, New Jersey state court, involving 34 New Jersey firefighters. This case has been transferred to federal court in the District of New Jersey. During the period from January through May 2016, eight additional cases were filed in various New Jersey state courts. Most of the firefighters in these cases reside in New Jersey and work or worked at New Jersey fire departments. During December 2016, a case involving one New Jersey firefighter was filed in the United States District Court of New Jersey. On May 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate and bifurcate in the pending federal court case in New Jersey. This motion was similar to bifurcation motions filed by plaintiffs in Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Philadelphia. The Court has denied this motion as premature. Pursuant to a petition filed by both parties, all New Jersey state court cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, there was a total of 61 firefighters involved in cases filed in New Jersey. During May through October 2016, nine cases were filed in Suffolk County, Massachusetts state court, naming the Company as a defendant. These cases involve 194 firefighters who lived and worked in the Boston area. During August 2017, plaintiffs filed additional cases in Suffolk County court. The Company moved to transfer various cases filed in Suffolk County to other counties in Massachusetts where plaintiffs reside and work. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, there was a total of 218 firefighters involved in cases filed in Massachusetts. During August and September 2017, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed additional hearing loss cases in Florida. The Company is the only named defendant. These cases were filed in several different counties in Florida, including Tampa, Miami and Orlando municipalities. Plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate that they will not seek more than $75,000 in damages in any individual plaintiff case. Prior to a dismissal of these cases pursuant to the Tolling Agreement, there was a total of 166 firefighters involved in cases filed in Florida. From 2007 through 2009, firefighters also brought hearing loss claims against the Company in New Jersey, Missouri, Maryland and Kings County, New York. All of those cases, however, were dismissed prior to trial, including four cases in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York that were dismissed upon the Company’s motion in 2008. On appeal, the New York appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of these cases. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have threatened to file additional lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these lawsuits, if filed.

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 significant arrangements with third parties, which includes operating lease arrangements and arrangements in which the entity has agreed to expend funds to procure goods or services, or has agreed to commit resources to supply goods or services, and operating lease arrangements. Descriptions may include identification of the specific goods and services, period of time covered, minimum quantities and amounts, and cancellation rights. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration