XML 151 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Note 17 Commitments and Contingencies Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies Settlement Agreement and Related Costs As discussed below, on February 3, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), the PI Settlement Plan (as defined below) implementing the Settlement agreement (as defined below) became effective with W. R. Grace & Co., or Grace, emerging from bankruptcy and the injunctions and releases provided by the PI Settlement Plan becoming effective. The Settlement agreement provided for resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims, fraudulent transfer claims, and successor liability claims made against the Company and our affiliates in connection with the Cryovac transaction described below, as well as indemnification claims by Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and affiliated companies in connection with the Cryovac transaction. On the Effective Date, the Company’s subsidiary, Cryovac, Inc., made the payments contemplated by the Settlement agreement, consisting of aggregate cash payments in the amount of $929.7 million to the WRG Asbestos PI Trust (the “PI Trust”) and the WRG Asbestos PD Trust (the “PD Trust”) and the transfer of 18 million shares of Sealed Air common stock (the “Settlement Shares”) to the PI Trust, in each case reflecting adjustments made in accordance with the Settlement agreement. To fund the cash payment, we used $555 million of cash and cash equivalents and utilized borrowings of $260 million from our revolving credit facility and $115 million from our accounts receivable securitization programs. In connection with the issuance of the Settlement Shares and their transfer to the PI Trust by Cryovac, the Company entered into a Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of February 3, 2014 (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), with the PI Trust as initial holder of the Settlement Shares. In accordance with the Registration Rights Agreement, the Company filed with the SEC a shelf registration statement covering resales of the Settlement Shares on April 4, 2014, and the shelf registration statement became effective on such date. On June 13, 2014, we repurchased $130 million, or 3,932,244 shares, of common stock at a price of $33.06 per share from the PI Trust (See Note 18, ‘Stockholders’ Equity” for further details). We are deducting the payment mentioned above in our 2014 consolidated U.S. income tax return. As a result, we have a net operating loss for U.S. tax purposes in 2014 and are carrying back, for 10 years, most of this loss. We have classified the resulting anticipated tax refund of approximately $247 million as a current income tax receivable, included in income tax receivables, in our consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2014. For a description of the Cryovac transaction, asbestos-related claims and the parties involved, see “Cryovac Transaction,” “Discussion of Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies,” “Fresenius Claims,” “Canadian Claims” and “Additional Matters Related to the Cryovac Transaction” below. Cryovac Transaction On June 30, 1998, we completed a multi-step transaction that brought the Cryovac packaging business and the former Sealed Air Corporation’s business under the common ownership of the Company. These businesses operated as subsidiaries of the Company, and the Company acted as a holding company. As part of that transaction, the parties separated the Cryovac packaging business, which previously had been held by various direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company, from the remaining businesses previously held by the Company. The parties then arranged for the contribution of these remaining businesses to a company now known as W. R. Grace & Co., and the Company distributed the Grace shares to the Company’s stockholders. As a result, W. R. Grace & Co. became a separate publicly owned company. The Company recapitalized its outstanding shares of common stock into a new common stock and a new convertible preferred stock. A subsidiary of the Company then merged into the former Sealed Air Corporation, which became a subsidiary of the Company and changed its name to Sealed Air Corporation (US). Discussion of Cryovac Transaction Commitments and Contingencies In connection with the Cryovac transaction, Grace and its subsidiaries retained all liabilities arising out of their operations before the Cryovac transaction, whether accruing or occurring before or after the Cryovac transaction, other than liabilities arising from or relating to Cryovac’s operations. Among the liabilities retained by Grace are liabilities relating to asbestos-containing products previously manufactured or sold by Grace’s subsidiaries prior to the Cryovac transaction, including its primary U.S. operating subsidiary, W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn., which has operated for decades and has been a subsidiary of Grace since the Cryovac transaction. The Cryovac transaction agreements provided that, should any claimant seek to hold the Company or any of its subsidiaries responsible for liabilities retained by Grace or its subsidiaries, including the asbestos-related liabilities, Grace and its subsidiaries would indemnify and defend us. Since the beginning of 2000, we have been served with a number of lawsuits alleging that, as a result of the Cryovac transaction, we were responsible for alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its subsidiaries, some of which were also named as co-defendants in some of these actions. Among these lawsuits were several purported class actions and a number of personal injury lawsuits. Some plaintiffs sought damages for personal injury or wrongful death, while others sought medical monitoring, environmental remediation or remedies related to an attic insulation product. Neither the former Sealed Air Corporation nor Cryovac, Inc. ever produced or sold any of the asbestos-containing materials that were the subjects of these cases. While the allegations in these actions directed to us varied, these actions all appeared to allege that the transfer of the Cryovac business as part of the Cryovac transaction was a fraudulent transfer or gave rise to successor liability. In the Joint Proxy Statement furnished to their respective stockholders in connection with the Cryovac transaction, both parties to the transaction stated their belief that none of the transfers contemplated to occur in the Cryovac transaction would be a fraudulent transfers and the parties’ belief that the Cryovac transaction complied with other relevant laws. However, if a court applying the relevant legal standards had reached conclusions adverse to us, these determinations could have had a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations, and we could have been required to return the property or its value to the transferor or to fund liabilities of Grace or its subsidiaries for the benefit of their creditors, including asbestos claimants. None of these cases reached resolution through judgment, settlement or otherwise. We signed the Settlement agreement, described below, that provided for the resolution of these claims. Moreover, as discussed below, Grace’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding stayed all of these cases and the orders confirming Grace’s plan of reorganization enjoined parties from prosecuting Grace-related asbestos claims against the Company. We signed the Settlement agreement, described below, that provided for the resolution of these claims. On April 2, 2001, Grace and a number of its subsidiaries filed petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”). In connection with Grace’s Chapter 11 filing and at Grace’s request, the court issued an order dated May 3, 2001, which was modified on January 22, 2002, under which the court stayed all the filed or pending asbestos actions against us and, upon filing and service on us, all future asbestos actions (collectively, the “Preliminary Injunction”). Pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction, no further proceedings involving us could occur in the actions that were stayed except upon further order of the Bankruptcy Court. Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace’s bankruptcy case received the court’s permission to pursue fraudulent transfer and other claims against the Company and its subsidiary Cryovac, Inc., and against Fresenius. This proceeding was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) (Adv. No. 02-02210). The claims against Fresenius were based upon a 1996 transaction between Fresenius and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. Fresenius is not affiliated with us. In June 2002, the court permitted the U.S. government to intervene as a plaintiff in the fraudulent transfer proceeding, so that the U.S. government could pursue allegations that environmental remediation expenses were underestimated or omitted in the solvency analyses of Grace conducted at the time of the Cryovac transaction. On November 27, 2002, we reached an agreement in principle with the Committees prosecuting the claims against the Company and Cryovac, Inc., to resolve all current and future asbestos-related claims arising from the Cryovac transaction (as memorialized by the parties and approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the “Settlement agreement”). The parties subsequently signed the definitive Settlement agreement as of November 10, 2003 consistent with the terms of the agreement in principle, and the Settlement agreement was approved by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated June 27, 2005. The Settlement agreement called for payment of nine million shares of our common stock and $513 million in cash, plus interest on the cash payment at a 5.5% annual rate starting on December 21, 2002 and ending on the effective date of an appropriate plan of reorganization in the Grace bankruptcy, when we would be required to make the payment. These shares were subject to customary anti-dilution provisions that adjust for the effects of stock splits, stock dividends and other events affecting our common stock, and as a result, the number of shares of our common stock issued under the Settlement agreement increased to eighteen million shares upon the two-for-one stock split in March 2007. The Settlement agreement provided that, upon the effective date of the final plan of reorganization and payment of the shares and cash, all present and future asbestos-related claims against us that arise from alleged asbestos liabilities of Grace and its affiliates (including former affiliates that became our affiliates through the Cryovac transaction) would be channeled to and become the responsibility of one or more trusts established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Settlement agreement also provided for resolution of all fraudulent transfer claims against us arising from the Cryovac transaction as well as the Fresenius claims described below. The Settlement agreement provided for releases of all those claims upon payment. Under the Settlement agreement, we cannot seek indemnity from Grace for our payments required by the Settlement agreement. The order approving the Settlement agreement also provided that the Preliminary Injunction stay of proceedings involving us described above continued through the effective date of the final plan of reorganization, after which, upon implementation of the Settlement agreement, we have been released from the Grace asbestos liabilities asserted in those proceedings and their continued prosecution against us are enjoined. As more fully discussed below, the Settlement agreement became effective upon Grace’s emergence from bankruptcy pursuant to the PI Settlement Plan. Following the Effective Date, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order dismissing the proceedings pursuant to which the Preliminary Injunction was issued. On September 19, 2008, Grace, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the Asbestos PI Future Claimants’ Representative, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders filed, as co-proponents, a plan of reorganization that incorporated a settlement of all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims against Grace (as filed and amended from time to time, the “PI Settlement Plan”). Amended versions of the PI Settlement Plan and related exhibits and documents were filed with the Bankruptcy Court from time to time. The PI Settlement Plan provides for the establishment of two asbestos trusts under Section 524(g) of the United States Bankruptcy Code to which present and future asbestos-related personal injury and property damage claims are channeled. The PI Settlement Plan also incorporates the Settlement agreement, including our payment of the amounts contemplated by the Settlement agreement. The Bankruptcy Court entered a memorandum opinion overruling certain objections to the PI Settlement Plan on January 31, 2011, and entered orders on January 31, 2011 and February 15, 2011 (collectively with the opinion, the “Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Orders”) confirming the PI Settlement Plan and requesting that the District Court issue and affirm the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order, including the injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Various parties appealed or otherwise challenged the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Orders. On January 30, 2012 and June 11, 2012 , the District Court issued memorandum opinions and orders (collectively with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Orders, the “Confirmation Orders”) overruling all objections to the PI Settlement Plan and confirming the PI Settlement Plan in its entirety, including the approval and issuance of the injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code and the other injunctions, releases, and indemnifications set forth in the PI Settlement Plan and the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order. Five appeals to the Confirmation Orders were filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit Court of Appeals”). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed or denied the appeals in separate opinions, with the final dismissal occurring on the Effective Date. On January 29, 2014, by agreement of the parties, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed with prejudice the fraudulent transfer action brought against the Company by the Committees appointed to represent asbestos claimants in Grace’s bankruptcy. Also on the Effective Date, the remaining conditions to the effectiveness of the PI Settlement Plan and the Settlement agreement were satisfied or waived by the relevant parties (including the Company), and the PI Settlement Plan implementing the Settlement agreement became effective and Grace emerged from bankruptcy on the Effective Date. In addition, under the PI Settlement Plan, the Confirmation Orders, and the Settlement agreement, Grace is required to indemnify us with respect to asbestos and certain other liabilities. Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if any courts were to refuse to enforce the injunctions or releases contained in the PI Settlement Plan and the Settlement agreement with respect to any claims, and if, in addition, Grace were unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries for such claims, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations Fresenius Claims In January 2002, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., its parent, Fresenius AG, a German company, and specified affiliates in New York State court asking the court to resolve a contract dispute between the parties. The Fresenius parties contended that we were obligated to indemnify them for liabilities that they might incur as a result of the 1996 Fresenius transaction mentioned above. The Fresenius parties’ contention was based on their interpretation of the agreements between them and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. in connection with the 1996 Fresenius transaction. In February 2002, the Fresenius parties announced that they had accrued a charge of $172 million for these potential liabilities, which included pre-transaction tax liabilities of Grace and the costs of defense of litigation arising from Grace’s Chapter 11 filing. We believe that we were not responsible to indemnify the Fresenius parties under the 1996 agreements and filed the action to proceed to a resolution of the Fresenius parties’ claims. In April 2002, the Fresenius parties filed a motion to dismiss the action and for entry of declaratory relief in its favor. We opposed the motion, and in July 2003, the court denied the motion without prejudice in view of the November 27, 2002 agreement in principle referred to above. On the Effective Date, and in connection with the PI Settlement Plan and the Settlement agreement, we and the Fresenius parties exchanged mutual releases, releasing us from any and all claims related to the 1996 Fresenius transaction. Canadian Claims In November 2004, the Company’s Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI04-01-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. were also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace’s marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI05-01-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace’s marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. — Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the “Canadian Court”), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.’s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. That order has been renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions referred to above. The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the “Canadian Settlement”), will be entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace’s United States Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. As indicated above, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court’s Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order’s terms. As described above, the PI Settlement Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In accordance with the above-mentioned December 31, 2009 order of the Canadian court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed until they are amended to remove the Grace parties as named defendants. The above-mentioned actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19, 2014 and it is anticipated that the remaining actions will now also be dismissed. Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Additional Matters Related to the Cryovac Transaction In view of Grace’s Chapter 11 filing, we may receive additional claims asserting that we are liable for obligations that Grace had agreed to retain in the Cryovac transaction and for which we may be contingently liable. To date, we are not aware of any material claims having been asserted or threatened against us. Final determinations and accountings under the Cryovac transaction agreements with respect to matters pertaining to the transaction had not been completed at the time of Grace’s Chapter 11 filing in 2001. We filed claims in the bankruptcy proceeding that reflect the costs and liabilities that we have incurred or may incur and that Grace and its affiliates agreed to retain or that are subject to indemnification by Grace and its affiliates under the Cryovac transaction agreements, other than payments to be made under the Settlement agreement. Grace has alleged that we are responsible for specified amounts under the Cryovac transaction agreements. On February 3, 2014, following Grace’s emergence from bankruptcy, the Company (for itself and its affiliates, collectively, the “Sealed Air Parties”) and Grace (for itself and its affiliates, collectively, the “Grace Parties”) entered into a claims settlement agreement (the “Claims Settlement”) to resolve certain of the parties’ claims against one another arising under the Cryovac transaction agreements (the “Transaction Claims”). Under the Claims Settlement, the Sealed Air Parties released and waived Transaction Claims against the Grace Parties other than asbestos-related claims, Fresenius-related claims, environmental claims, insurance claims, mass tort claims, non-monetary tax sharing agreement claims, certain claims listed in annexes to proofs of claim filed by the Sealed Air Companies in connection with the Grace bankruptcy, claims relating to certain matters described in the PI Settlement Plan, certain executory contract claims relating to certain leased sites or sites that were divided as part of the Cryovac transaction, and certain indemnification claims. Under the Claims Settlement, the Grace Parties released and waived Transaction Claims against the Sealed Air Companies other than non-monetary tax sharing agreement claims, certain executory contract claims relating to certain leased sites or sites that were divided as part of the Cryovac transaction, and certain indemnification claims. The Claims Settlement also provides that the Sealed Air Parties and the Grace Parties will share equally all fees and expenses relating to certain litigation brought by former Cryovac employees. Except to the extent that a claim is specifically referenced, the Claims Settlement does not supersede or affect the obligations of the parties under the PI Settlement Plan or our Settlement agreement. Environmental Matters We are subject to loss contingencies resulting from environmental laws and regulations, and we accrue for anticipated costs associated with investigatory and remediation efforts when an assessment has indicated that a loss is probable and can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are not reduced by potential insurance recoveries, if any. We do not believe that it is reasonably possible that our liability in excess of the amounts that we have accrued for environmental matters will be material to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Environmental liabilities are reassessed whenever circumstances become better defined or remediation efforts and their costs can be better estimated. We evaluate these liabilities periodically based on available information, including the progress of remedial investigations at each site, the current status of discussions with regulatory authorities regarding the methods and extent of remediation and the apportionment of costs among potentially responsible parties. As some of these issues are decided (the outcomes of which are subject to uncertainties) or new sites are assessed and costs can be reasonably estimated, we adjust the recorded accruals, as necessary. We believe that these exposures are not material to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. We believe that we have adequately reserved for all probable and estimable environmental exposures. Guarantees and Indemnification Obligations We are a party to many contracts containing guarantees and indemnification obligations. These contracts primarily consist of:
— | product warranties with respect to certain products sold to customers in the ordinary course of business. These warranties typically provide that products will conform to specifications. We generally do not establish a liability for product warranty based on a percentage of sales or other formula. We accrue a warranty liability on a transaction-specific basis depending on the individual facts and circumstances related to each sale. Both the liability and annual expense related to product warranties are immaterial to our consolidated financial position and results of operations; and
— | licenses of intellectual property by us to third parties in which we have agreed to indemnify the licensee against third party infringement claims.
Development Grant Matter On May 25, 2010, one of our Italian subsidiaries received a demand from the Italian Ministry of Economic Development (the “Ministry”) for the total repayment of grant monies paid to two of our former subsidiaries in the amount of €5 million. The grant monies had previously been certified as payable by the Italian authorities and the grant process was finalized and closed in 2006. We acquired the former subsidiaries in September 2001 as part of an acquisition. The substance of the repayment demand is that the former owners of the subsidiaries made fraudulent claims and used fraudulent documents to support their grant application prior to our acquisition. There is no suggestion that we or our Italian subsidiary were directly involved in the grant process, but as purchaser of the two companies, the Ministry is seeking repayment from our Italian subsidiary. Our Italian subsidiary submitted a total denial of liability in regard to this matter on June 30, 2010. A hearing on the merits was held on July 3, 2014 and in mid-September; our subsidiary was advised that the demand for repayment of €10 million was upheld. Accordingly, we recorded a current liability and corresponding charge of $14 million related to this matter in 2014. The liability ($13 million equivalent at December 31, 2014 with accrued interest) is included in other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets and the charge is included in selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated statements of operations. The charge is treated as a special item and included in Corporate in the “Other” category for segment reporting purposes. In mid-December, 2014 we learned our application to suspend enforcement of the judgment pending appeal had been declined. A final hearing on the merits is expected to be heard in two to three years. Other Principal Contractual Obligations At December 31, 2014, we had other principal contractual obligations, which included agreements to purchase an estimated amount of goods, including raw materials, or services in the normal course of business, aggregating to approximately $354 million. The estimated future cash outlays are as follows:
Year |  | Amount (in millions) |
2015 |  | $ | 139.1 |
2016 |  |  | 87.5 |
2017 |  |  | 59.4 |
2018 |  |  | 44.4 |
2019 |  |  | 15.6 |
Thereafter |  |  | 7.7 |
Total |  | $ | 353.7 |
Leases We are obligated under the terms of various leases covering primarily warehouse and office facilities and production equipment, as well as smaller manufacturing sites that we occupy. We account for the majority of our leases as operating leases, which may include purchase or renewal options. At December 31, 2014, estimated future minimum annual rental commitments under non-cancelable real and personal property leases were as follows:
Year |  | Amount (in millions) |
2015 |  | $ | 57.6 |
2016 |  |  | 40.4 |
2017 |  |  | 26.9 |
2018 |  |  | 15.7 |
2019 |  |  | 9.7 |
Thereafter |  |  | 16.7 |
Total |  | $ | 167.0 |
Net rental expense was $71 million in 2014, $79 million in 2013 and $84 million in 2012.

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