XML 41 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
May 02, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and contingencies | Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings Employment practices As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the Claimants’ Motion. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI’s Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI’s Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted the Claimants’ motion. On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants’ Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants’ Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Consideration Of Respondent’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court’s Resolution Of Sterling’s Motion To Vacate Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed. On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator’s Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants’ Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which Claimants opposed. SJI’s Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff’s opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which Claimant’s opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed SJI’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016 and ordered into effect the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27, 2017. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action; however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined. SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately 9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the absent class members “never consented” to the Arbitrator determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members who had not opted in the litigation. On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award relative to absent class members with the District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument was heard on October 16, 2017. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act and Title VII promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI’s motions was heard. On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the litigation. On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI’s Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially granting SJI’s Motion to Amend the Arbitrator’s November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has not been set. On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI’s August 17, 2017 Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties (absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is 254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal. The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to submit additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and remanding the District Court’s January 15, 2018 Order that vacated the Arbitrator’s Class Determination Award certifying for declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions class of female retail sales employees. The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred when it concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in purporting to bind absent class members to the Class Determination Award. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to decide the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a hearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc. On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its motion for stay of mandate with the Second Circuit pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Sterling’s motion for stay of mandate. The petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on June 12, 2020. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. This suit was settled on May 5, 2017, as further described below. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleged that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserted claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016, which was denied. The case was remanded to the Western District of New York and on November 2, 2016, the Court issued a case scheduling order. On January 25, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to extend case scheduling order deadlines. The motion was granted on January 27, 2017. On May 5, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York approved and entered the Consent Decree jointly proposed by the EEOC and SJI, resolving all of the EEOC’s claims against SJI in this litigation for various injunctive relief including but not limited to the appointment of an employment practices expert to review specific policies and practices, a compliance officer to be employed by SJI, as well as obligations relative to training, notices, reporting and record-keeping. The Consent Decree does not require an outside third-party monitor or require any monetary payment. The duration of the Consent Decree was three years and three months, expiring on August 4, 2020. On March 6, 2020, SJI and the EEOC filed their Joint Motion to Approve an Amendment to And Extension of the Term of the Consent Decree, which provides for a limited extension of a few aspects of the Consent Decree terms regarding SJI’s compensation practices, and incorporating its implementation of a new retail team member compensation program into the overall Consent Decree framework. This extension will enable SJI to implement changes to its retail team member compensation strategy and validate that the new program is consistent with the overall purposes of the Consent Decree. On March 11, 2020 the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the joint motion and entered the parties’ Amendment to And Extension of the Term of the Consent Decree. The term of the amended Consent Decree expires on November 4, 2021. Shareholder Actions In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the “S.D.N.Y. cases”). On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons that acquired the Company’s securities on or between August 29, 2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current and former Chief Financial Officers. The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company’s business and earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly having issues ensuring the safety of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company’s credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the “Arbitration”). The second amended complaint alleged that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875 and 17-cv-923, the “N.D. Tex. cases”). Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged that the defendants’ statements concerning the Arbitration violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the “Consolidated Action”). On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3, 2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017. On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013, through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the claim based on defendants’ alleged misstatements concerning the security of customers’ jewelry while in the Company’s custody for repairs. The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address the issues raised in the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2017, another alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its current Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853). This complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company’s credit portfolio between August 24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees. On January 7, 2018, this case was consolidated into the Consolidated Action. On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9, 2018. On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth amended complaint. On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff moved for appointment of a class representative and class counsel and for certification of a class period of August 29, 2013, through March 13, 2018. On July 10, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Signet common stock from August 29, 2013 to May 25, 2017. The Court also appointed a class representative and class counsel. On May 9, 2019, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to certain alleged misstatements. On June 11, 2019, the Court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The defendants moved for reconsideration on June 18, 2019. The Court denied that motion on June 20, 2019. On July 24, 2019, the defendants filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s class certification decision. On November 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals granted that petition. On November 20, 2019, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings in the District Court while the appeal is pending. On November 21, 2019, the District Court granted that motion. On January 16, 2020, the lead plaintiff and defendants filed a joint stipulation in the Court of Appeals withdrawing the appeal without costs or attorneys’ fees and providing that the defendants may reinstate the appeal by filing written notice by August 28, 2020. The Court of Appeals granted the stipulation on January 16, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the Company, all of the other defendant parties to the Consolidated Action, and the lead plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement in the Consolidated Action. The settlement of $240 million provides for the dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice. The settlement agreement also states that the Company and all the other defendants expressly deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages whatsoever, and that defendants are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted litigation. As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a charge of $33.2 million during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2020 in other operating income (loss), which includes administration costs of $0.6 million and is recorded net of expected recoveries from the Company’s insurance carriers of $207.4 million. As of May 2, 2020 and February 1, 2020, the liability related to settlement and administration fees was recorded in other current liabilities, and the expected insurance recoveries are recorded in other current assets in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The settlement was fully funded in the second quarter of Fiscal 2021, and the Company contributed approximately $35 million of the $240 million settlement payment, net of insurance proceeds and including the impact of foreign currency. The settlement is subject to court approval at a fairness hearing, which is currently scheduled for July 21, 2020, following notice to the class. On March 27, 2019, two actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by investment funds that allegedly purchased the Company’s stock (Nos. 19-cv-2757 and 19-cv-2758), and name the Company and its current and former Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers as defendants. Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud, based on alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company’s credit portfolio. These claims are substantially the same as the credit-related claims in the Consolidated Action, except that No. 19-cv-2757 alleges a “relevant period” of August 29, 2013, to June 2, 2016, and No. 19-cv-2758 alleges a “relevant period” of August 29, 2013, to August 25, 2016. On May 14, 2019, and May 29, 2019, the Court entered orders staying these actions until entry of final judgment in the Consolidated Action. On March 4, 2020, the plaintiffs in No. 19-cv-2757 filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (No. 651488/2020), seeking relief that is substantially similar to those plaintiffs’ claim for common law fraud in No. 19-cv-2757. On October 25, 2019, two more actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by investment funds that allegedly purchased the Company’s stock (Nos. 19-cv-9916 and 19-cv-9917), and name the Company and its current and former Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers as defendants. Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud. The claims in No. 19-cv-9916 are substantially the same as the claims in the Consolidated Action related to the Company’s alleged failure to disclose reports of sexual harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in the Arbitration, except that No. 19-cv-9916 alleges a “relevant period” of December 2, 2016, to February 1, 2017. The claims in No. 19-cv-9917 are substantially the same as the claims in the Consolidated Action, except that No. 19-cv-9917 alleges a “relevant period” of August 28, 2014, to March 16, 2017. On November 5, 2019, the Court entered orders staying these actions until entry of final judgment in the Consolidated Action. On June 27, 2020, the Company and plaintiffs in the four stayed actions above (Case Id Nos. 19-cv-2757, 19-cv-2758, 19-cv-9916 and 19-cv-9917) reached a settlement in principle subject to final documentation. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $8.5 million, net of expected insurance recovery, during the 13 weeks ended May 2, 2020 in anticipation of those four anticipated settlements. The final amount of the settlement and net charge are dependent upon the amount such plaintiffs would receive as part of the Consolidated Action and the actual amount of the Company’s insurance recovery, and are not expected to be materially different than the amounts recorded. Derivative Action On September 1, 2017, Josanne Aungst filed a putative shareholder derivative action entitled Aungst v. Light, et al., No. CV-2017-3665, in the Court of Common Pleas for Summit County Ohio. The complaint in this action, which purports to have been brought by Ms. Aungst on behalf of the Company, names certain current and former directors and officers of the Company as defendants and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. The complaint challenges certain public disclosures and conduct relating to the allegations that were raised by the claimants in the Arbitration. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s share price was artificially inflated as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The complaint seeks money damages on behalf of the Company, changes to the Company’s corporate governance, and other equitable relief, as well as plaintiff’s legal fees and costs. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on February 28, 2019. On March 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of the action. On July 1, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal brief in the Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District, Summit County, Ohio. Defendants filed their answering brief on August 9, 2019. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on August 19, 2019. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on January 16, 2020. On June 17, 2020, the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the dismissal. Regulatory Matters On January 16, 2019, Sterling Jewelers Inc., (“Sterling”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Company, without admitting or denying any of the allegations, findings of fact, or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), entered into a Consent Order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") and New York Attorney General (the “NY AG”) settling a previously disclosed investigation of certain in-store credit practices, promotions, and payment protection products (the "Consent Order"). Among other things, the Consent Order requires Sterling to (i) submit an accurate written compliance report to the CFPB; (ii) pay an $10,000,000 civil money penalty to the CFPB; (iii) pay a $1,000,000 civil money penalty to the NY AG: and (iv) maintain policies and procedures related to the issuance of credit cards, including with respect to credit applications, credit financing terms and conditions, and any related add-on products that are reasonably designed to ensure consumer knowledge or consent. All payments required by the Consent Order were made in February 2019. We continue to work to ensure compliance with the Consent Order, which may result in us incurring additional costs. See Item 1A of Signet’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020 filed with the SEC on March 26, 2020 for risks relating to the CFPB and our continued compliance with the Consent Order.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration