XML 80 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Contingencies and Commitments | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Contingencies and Commitments |
Contingencies and Commitments | [8] Contingencies and Commitments The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company and certain of its clients have made claims arising from the performance under their contracts. The Company recognizes certain significant claims for recovery of incurred cost when it is probable that the claim will result in additional contract revenue and when the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. These assessments require judgments concerning matters such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations, the number of future claims and the cost of both pending and future claims. In addition, because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, liabilities may change in the future due to various factors. Several matters are in the litigation and dispute resolution process. The following discussion provides a background and current status of these matters. Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture vs. Los Angeles MTA Matter During 1995 Tutor-Saliba-Perini (“Joint Venture”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LAMTA”), seeking to recover costs for extra work required by LAMTA in connection with the construction of certain tunnel and station projects, all of which were completed by 1996. In 1999, LAMTA countered with civil claims under the California False Claims Act against the Joint Venture, Tutor-Saliba and the Company jointly and severally (together, “TSP”), and obtained a judgment that was reversed on appeal and remanded for retrial before a different judge. Between 2005 and 2010, the court granted certain Joint Venture motions and LAMTA capitulated on others, which reduced the number of false claims LAMTA may seek and limited LAMTA’s claims for damages and penalties. In September 2010, LAMTA dismissed its remaining claims and agreed to pay the entire amount of the Joint Venture’s remaining claims plus interest. In the remanded proceedings, the Court subsequently entered judgment in favor of TSP and against LAMTA in the amount of $3.0 million after deducting $0.5 million, representing the tunnel handrail verdict plus accrued interest against TSP. The parties filed post-trial motions for costs and fees. The Court ruled that TSP’s sureties could recover costs, LAMTA could recover costs for the tunnel handrail trial, and no party could recover attorneys’ fees. TSP is appealing the false claims jury verdict on the tunnel handrail claim and other issues, including the denial of TSP’s and its sureties’ request for attorneys’ fees. LAMTA subsequently filed its cross-appeal. In June 2014, the Court of Appeal issued its decision reversing judgment on the People’s Unfair Competition claim and the denial of TSP’s Sureties’ request for attorney’s fees and affirming the remainder of the judgment. LAMTA subsequently filed a request for hearing before the California Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that TSP’s Sureties are entitled to attorney’s fees. In September 2014, the Supreme Court denied the MTA’s petition for Review. In September 2014, the Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the trial court to make further rulings consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal. In November 2014, the court set the hearing on the motion for TSP’s Surety’s attorney’s fees for March 2015. In January 2015, payment was made by LAMTA in the amount of $3.8 million. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture-Central Artery/Tunnel Project Matter Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture (“PKC”), a joint venture in which the Company holds a 56% interest and is the managing partner, is currently pursuing a series of claims, instituted at different times since 2000, for additional contract time and/or compensation against the Massachusetts Highway Department (“MHD”) for work performed by PKC on a portion of the Central Artery/Tunnel (“CA/T”) project in Boston, Massachusetts. During construction, MHD ordered PKC to perform changes to the work and issued related direct cost changes with an estimated value, excluding time delay and inefficiency costs, in excess of $100 million. In addition, PKC encountered a number of unforeseen conditions during construction that greatly increased PKC’s cost of performance. MHD has asserted counterclaims for liquidated damages and back charges. Certain of PKC’s claims have been presented to a Disputes Review Board (“DRB”), which consists of three construction experts chosen by the parties. To date, five DRB panels issued several awards and interim decisions in favor of PKC’s claims, amounting to total awards to PKC in excess of $128 million plus interest, of which $110 million were binding awards. In December 2010, the Suffolk County Superior Court granted MHD’s motion for summary judgment to vacate the Third DRB Panel’s awards to PKC for approximately $56.5 million on the grounds that the arbitrators do not have authority to decide whether particular claims are subject to the arbitration provision of the contract. MHD subsequently moved to vacate approximately $13.7 million of the Fourth DRB Panel’s total awards to PKC on the same arbitrability basis that the Third DRB’s awards were vacated. In October 2011, the Suffolk County Superior Court followed its earlier arbitrability rulings holding that the Fourth DRB exceeded its authority in deciding arbitrability with respect to certain of the Fourth DRB Panel’s awards (approximately $8 million of the $13.7 million discussed above). PKC appealed the Superior Court decisions and in January 2013, the Superior Court decisions were affirmed in MHD’s favor. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine how and by whom the claims must be decided. PKC filed an application for further appellate review by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and a motion for reconsideration in the Appeals Court. The Appeals Court rejected PKC’s petition for rehearing. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied the application in June 2013. In February 2012, PKC received a $22 million payment for an interest award associated with the Second DRB panel’s awards to PKC. In January 2013, PKC received a $14.8 million payment for back charges and interest associated with the Fourth DRB panel’s awards to PKC that were confirmed. In June 2014, the Superior Court issued a decision granting PKC's motion in its entirety. The Court concluded that the Engineer's Decisions concerning the arbitrability of PKC's claims were based on error of law and were unsupported by substantial evidence. The Court vacated the Engineer's Decisions on the arbitrability of PKC's claims. The Court also concluded that PKC's claims are subject to arbitration. The Court reinstated the DRB's arbitration awards on those claims, and made clear that its decision pertains to the awards of DRB3 as well as awards of the DRB4. DRB5 will convene to award interest on DRB3 and DRB4 awards, and the Court will then enter judgment in PKC’s favor on the total amount. As a result of the Judge’s Order, PKC has increased its anticipated recovery to $88.7 million which includes interest. In October 2014, PKC reached agreement with MHD on the total amount owed, including interest. Management booked the impact of this settlement during the third quarter of 2014. In December 2014, payment was made by MHD in the amount of $88.7 million. This matter is now closed. Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange project for the New York State Department of Transportation (the “NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by the NYSDOT as finally complete in February 2006. The Company incurred significant added costs in completing its work and suffered extended schedule costs due to numerous design errors, undisclosed utility conflicts, lack of coordination with local agencies and other interferences for which the Company believes that the NYSDOT is responsible. In March 2011, the Company filed its claim and complaint with the New York State Court of Claims and served to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, seeking damages in the amount of $53.8 million. In May 2011, the NYSDOT filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claim on the grounds that the Company had not provided required documentation for project closeout and filing of a claim. In September 2011, the Company reached agreement on final payment with the Comptroller’s Office on behalf of the NYSDOT which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project, which allowed the Company’s claim to be re-filed. The Company re-filed its claim in the amount of $53.8 million with the NYSDOT in February 2012 and with the Court of Claims in March 2012. In May 2012, the NYSDOT served its answer and counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the project. The Court subsequently ruled that NYSDOT’s counterclaims may only be asserted as a defense and offset to the Company’s claims and not as affirmative claims. The Company does not expect the counterclaim to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. Fontainebleau Matter Desert Mechanical Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“Fisk”), wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, were subcontractors on the Fontainebleau Project in Las Vegas (“Fontainebleau”), a hotel/casino complex with approximately 3,800 rooms. In June 2009, Fontainebleau filed for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, in the Southern District of Florida. Fontainebleau is headquartered in Miami, Florida. DMI and Fisk filed liens in Nevada for approximately $44 million, representing unreimbursed costs to date and lost profits, including anticipated profits. Other unaffiliated subcontractors have also filed liens. In June 2009, DMI filed suit against Turnberry West Construction, Inc. (“Turnberry”), the general contractor, in the 8th Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and in May 2010, the court entered an order in favor of DMI for approximately $45 million. In January 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the property to Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition, LLC, and this transaction closed in February 2010. As a result of a July 2010 ruling relating to certain priming liens, there was approximately $125 million set aside from this sale, which is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority. At that time, the total estimated sustainable lien amount was approximately $350 million. The project lender filed suit against the mechanic’s lien claimants, including DMI and Fisk, alleging that certain mechanic’s liens are invalid and that all mechanic’s liens are subordinate to the lender’s claims against the property. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in October 2012 in an advisory opinion at the request of the Bankruptcy Court that lien priorities would be determined in favor of the mechanic lien holders under Nevada law. In October 2013, a settlement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the other interested parties. The agreed upon settlement has not had an impact on the Company’s recorded accounting position as of the period and periods ended December 31, 2014. The execution of that settlement agreement continues under the supervision of a mediator appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. MGM CityCenter Matter Tutor Perini Building Corp. (“TPBC”) (formerly Perini Building Company, Inc.), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted with MGM MIRAGE Design Group (“MGM”) in March 2005 to construct the CityCenter project in Las Vegas, Nevada. The project, which encompasses nineteen separate contracts, is a 66-acre urban mixed use development consisting of hotels, condominiums, retail space and a casino. The Company achieved substantial completion of the project in December 2009, and MGM opened the project to the public on the same date. In March 2010, the Company filed suit against MGM and certain other property owners in the Clark County District Court alleging several claims including breach of contract, among other items. In a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by MGM in March 2010, and in subsequent communications issued, MGM asserted that it believes it owes substantially less than the claimed amount and that it has claims for losses in connection with the construction of the Harmon Tower and is entitled to unspecified offsets for other work on the project. According to MGM, the total of the offsets and the Harmon Tower claims exceed the amount claimed by the Company. In May 2010, MGM filed a counterclaim and third party complaint against the Company and its subsidiary TPBC. The court granted the Company and MGM’s joint motion to consolidate all subcontractor initiated actions into the main CityCenter lawsuit. In July 2012, the Court granted MGM’s motion to demolish the Harmon Tower, one of the CityCenter buildings, as a “business decision.” Evidence had been presented at the Harmon related hearings that the Harmon Tower could be repaired for approximately $21 million, more than $15 million of which is due to design defects that are MGM’s responsibility. In mid-September 2012, MGM filed a request for additional destructive testing of the Harmon Tower. In October 2012, the Court ruled it would allow additional testing but with certain conditions including but not limited to the Court’s withdrawing MGM’s right to demolish the Harmon Tower and severing the Harmon Tower defects issue from the rest of the case. In February 2013, MGM filed third-party complaints against the project designers, which were resolved through third party settlements including $33.0 million attributable to MGM’s alleged damages on the Harmon, effective October 2013. In early April 2013, MGM started additional destructive testing of the Harmon Tower. With respect to alleged losses at the Harmon Tower, the Company has contractual indemnities from the responsible subcontractor, as well as insurance coverage. The Company’s insurance carrier initiated legal proceedings seeking declaratory relief that their insurance policies do not provide for defense or coverage for matters pertaining to the Harmon Towers. Those proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the underlying dispute in Nevada District Court. The Company is not aware of a basis for other claims that would amount to material offsets against what MGM owes to the Company. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. During July 2013, a settlement was reached for $39.8 million related to outstanding receivables for various subcontractors, which included consideration for, and brought resolution to, disputes between the Company’s subsidiaries Fisk and DMI and MGM. Payment was received in August 2013. As of December 2014, MGM has reached agreements with subcontractors to settle $348 million of amounts previously billed to MGM. The Company has reduced and will continue to reduce amounts included in revenues, cost of construction operations, accounts receivable and accounts payable for the reduction in subcontractor pass-through billings, which the Company would not expect to have an impact on recorded profit. As of December 2014, the Company had approximately $145.3 million recorded as contract receivables for amounts due and owed to the Company. In January 2014, the Parties reached a confidential settlement on most of the non-Harmon Tower related issues, including the majority of the Company’s affirmative claims. On or about October 27, 2014, a second agreement was reached for previously disputed items as the Court ordered mediation remained in progress for unresolved claims. The trial began on October 28, 2014. On December 12, 2014, and December 31, 2014, Tutor Perini Corporation and Tutor Perini Building Corp. (collectively “Tutor Perini”) reached multiple settlements with MGM Mirage Resorts International and CityCenter Holdings, LLC (collectively “CityCenter”) regarding the CityCenter Project and the litigation which commenced in 2010. The settlement was entered into under confidential terms which fully resolve all material disputes between Tutor Perini, CityCenter, and the related subcontractors, except for Show Canada. Management booked the impact of this settlement, which did not differ materially from balances recorded as of September 2014, during the fourth quarter of 2014. During February 2015, payment was received in full. This matter is now closed. Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges Matter In 1999, the Company was awarded a contract for reconstruction of the Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges project for the City of New York (the “City”). In June 2003, after substantial completion of the project, the Company initiated an action to recover $8.8 million in claims against the City on behalf of itself and its subcontractors. In March 2010, the City filed counterclaims for $74.6 million and other relief, alleging fraud in connection with the DBE requirements for the project. In May 2010, the Company served the City with its response to the City’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of the City’s affirmitive defenses and counterclaims based on DBE fraud. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Westgate Planet Hollywood Matter Tutor-Saliba Corporation (“TSC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted to construct a time share development project in Las Vegas which was substantially completed in December 2009. The Company’s claims against the owner, Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC (“WPH”), relate to unresolved owner change orders and other claims. The Company filed a lien on the project in the amount of $23.2 million, and filed its complaint with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. Several subcontractors have also recorded liens, some of which have been released by bonds and some of which have been released as a result of subsequent payment. WPH has posted a mechanic’s lien release bond for $22.3 million. WPH filed a cross-complaint alleging non-conforming and defective work for approximately $51 million, primarily related to alleged defects, misallocated costs, and liquidated damages. Some or all of the allegations will be defended by counsel appointed by TSC’s insurance carrier. WPH has since revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million. Following multiple post-trial motions, final judgment was entered in this matter on March 20, 2014. TSC was awarded total judgment in the amount of $19.7 million on its breach of contract claim, which includes an award of interest up through the date of judgment, plus attorney’s fees and costs. WPH has paid $0.6 million of that judgment. WPH was awarded total judgment in the amount of $3.1 million on its construction defect claims, which includes interest up through the date of judgment. The awards are not offsetting. WPH and its Sureties have filed a notice of appeal. TSC has filed a notice of appeal on the defect award. In July 2014, the Court ordered WPH to post an additional supersedeas bond on appeal, in the amount of $1.7 million, in addition to the lien release bond of $22.3 million, which increases the security up to $24.0 million. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. 100th Street Bus Depot Matter The Company constructed the 100th Street Bus Depot for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) in New York. Prior to receiving notice of final acceptance from the NYCTA, this project experienced a failure of the brick facade on the building due to faulty subcontractor work. The Company has not yet received notice of final acceptance of this project from the NYCTA. The Company contends defective structural installation by the Company’s steel subcontractor caused or was a causal factor of the brick facade failure. The Company tendered its claim to the NYCTA OCIP and to Chartis Claims, Inc. (“Chartis”), its insurance carrier. Coverage was denied in January 2011. The OCIP and general liability carriers filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company seeking court determination that no coverage is afforded under their policies. In mid-February 2012, the Company filed a third-party action against certain underwriters (“Lloyd’s”). In mid-November 2012, the Court granted Chartis’ and Lloyd’s respective motions for summary judgment without oral argument. In 2013, parties filed appellate briefs and the matter at the time was under submission in the Court of Appeal. On May 6, 2014, th e 2nd Circuit Court issued a summary order affirming the trial court’s decision on the grounds of late notice. Management booked the impact of this judgment during the second quarter of 2014, resulting in a charge against the company’s earnings. This matter is now closed. Brightwater Matter In 2006, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division of King County (“King County”), as Owner, and Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, Joint Venture (“VPFK”), as Contractor, entered into a contract to construct the Brightwater Conveyance System and tunnel sections in Washington State. Frontier-Kemper, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is a 20% minority partner in the joint venture. In April 2010, King County filed a lawsuit alleging damages in the amount of $74 million, plus costs, for VPFK’s failure to complete specified components of the project in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington. Shortly thereafter, VPFK filed a counterclaim in the amount of approximately $75 million, seeking reimbursement for additional costs incurred as a result of differing site conditions, King County’s defective specifications, for damages sustained on VPFK’s tunnel boring machines (“TBM”), and increased costs as a result of hyperbaric interventions. VPFK’s claims related to differing site conditions, defective design specifications, and damages to the TBM were presented to a Dispute Resolution Board (“DRB”). King County amended the amount sought in its lawsuit to approximately $132 million. In August 2011, the DRB generally found that King County was liable to VPFK for VPFK’s claims for encountering differing site conditions, including damages to the TBM, but not on VPFK’s alternative theory of defective specifications. From June through August 2012, each party filed several motions for summary judgment on certain claims and requests in preparation for trial, which were heard and ruled upon by the Court. The Court granted and denied various requests of each party related to evidence and damages. In December 2012, a jury verdict was received in favor of King County in the amount of $155.8 million and a verdict in favor of VPFK in the amount of $26.3 million. In late April 2013, the Court ruled on post-trial motions and ordered VPFK’s sureties to pay King County’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $14.7 million. All other motions were denied. On May 7, 2013, VPFK paid the full verdict amount and the associated fees, thus terminating any interest on the judgment. VPFK’s notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2013. Oral argument is scheduled for March 9, 2015. The ultimate financial impact of King County’s lawsuit is not yet specifically determinable. In the fourth quarter of 2012, management developed a range of possible outcomes and has recorded a charge to income and a contingent liability of $5.0 million in accrued expenses. In developing a range of possible outcomes, management considered the jury verdict, continued litigation and potential settlement strategies. Management determined that there was no estimate within the range of possible outcomes that was more probable than the other and recorded a liability at the low end of the range. As of December 31, 2014, there were no changes in facts or circumstances that led management to believe that there were any changes to the probability of outcomes. The amount of payments in excess of the established contingent liability is recorded in Accounts Receivable on the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2014. Estimating and recording future outcomes of litigation proceedings require significant judgment and assumptions about the future, which are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. If a final recovery turns out to be materially less favorable than our estimates, this may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time. 156 Stations Matter In December 2003, Five Star Electric Corporation (“FSE”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into an agreement with the Prime Contractor Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Transit”), a Consortium member of Siemens Transportation Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Siemens”), to assist in the installation of new public address and customer information screens system for each of the 156 stations for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) as the owner. Work on the project commenced in early 2004 and was substantially completed. In June 2007, FSE submitted a Demand for Arbitration against Transit to terminate FSE’s subcontract due to: the execution of a Cure Agreement between the NYCTA, Siemens and Transit, which amended FSE’s rights under the Prime Contract; Transit’s failure to provide information and equipment to allow work to progress according to the approved schedule, and Transit’s failure to tender payment in excess of a year. In June 2012, the arbitration panel awarded FSE a total of approximately $11.9 million to be paid within 45 days, and Transit’s claims were denied. FSE filed a motion to confirm arbitration award in District Court in July 2012. In late August 2012, Transit Technologies filed a cross petition to vacate the award. In November 2012, the Court granted FSE’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied Transit Technologies’ cross-petition to vacate the award. In February 2013, the Court affirmed FSE’s award and entered judgment in the amount of $12.3 million including award, costs and interest. The deadline for Transit to file an appeal regarding the judgment passed on April 4, 2013, rendering the judgment final for all purposes In a related matter, in May 2014, the court decided that only $8.5 million of the total arbitration award of $11.9 million can be recovered aganst the payment bond. In December 2014, FSE filed it s reply for the motion for re-argument with regard to the reduction in recoverable costs against the payment bond. Settlement discussions have taken place with Siemens to avoid further litigation. The eventual resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Matter Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (“R&S”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a contract with the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA” or “Owner”) for the construction of a 287,000 square-foot facility for NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center Replacement Headquarters and Laboratory in La Jolla, California. The contract work began on May 24, 2010, and was substantially completed in September 2012. R&S incurred significant additional costs as a result of a design that contained errors and omissions, NOAA’s unwillingness to correct design flaws in a timely fashion and a refusal to negotiate the time and pricing associated with change order work. R&S has filed two certified claims against NOAA for contract adjustments related to the unresolved Owner change orders, delays, design deficiencies and other claims. The First Certified Claim was submitted on August 20, 2013, in the amount of $26.8 million ("First Certified Claim") and the second certified claim was submitted on October 30, 2013, in the amount of $2.6 million ("Second Certified Claim"). NOAA requested an extension of nine months to issue a decision on the First Certified Claim, but did not request an extension of time related to review of the Second Certified Claim. On January 6, 2014, R&S filed suit in the United States Federal Court of Claims on the Second Certified Claim plus interest and attorney's fees and costs. This was followed by submission of a law suit on the First Certified Claim on July 31, 2014. In October 2014, the court ordered that the two lawsuits be consolidated for purposes of oral argument on the respective Motions to Dismiss. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.

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