XML 51 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.4

Commitments And Contingencies (Notes) | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block] | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to allegations: •that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by Realogy Brokerage Group or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against Realogy Brokerage Group for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or similar claims against Realogy Franchise Group as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents; •concerning other employment law matters, including other types of worker classification claims as well as wage and hour claims and retaliation claims; •concerning anti-trust and anti-competition matters (including claims related to NAR or MLS rules regarding buyer broker commissions); •that the Company is vicariously liable for the acts of franchisees under theories of actual or apparent agency; •by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations; •concerning alleged RESPA or state real estate law violations; •concerning claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including autodialer claims; •concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history; •related to copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder or claims challenging our trademarks; •concerning breach of obligations to make websites and other services accessible for consumers with disabilities; •concerning claims generally against the title agent contending that the agent knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or that the agent was negligent in addressing title defects or conducting the settlement; •concerning information security, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information; •concerning cyber-crime, including claims related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds; •claims related to disclosure or securities law violations as well as derivative suits; and •those related to general fraud claims. Worker Classification Litigation Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County). This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020 and continued to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA. As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well as attorneys’ fees. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The demurrer filed by Century 21 M&M (and joined by Century 21) on August 3, 2020 to the plaintiff’s amended complaint, was granted by the Court on November 10, 2020, dismissing the case without leave to replead. On January 20, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order granting the demurrer. This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties. Real Estate Industry Litigation Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported in our Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl complaint). In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. In October 2019, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a statement of interest for this matter, in their words “to correct the inaccurate portrayal, by defendant The National Association of Realtors (‘NAR’), of a 2008 consent decree between the United States and NAR.” A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an interim basis by the Court on May 30, 2020. On October 2, 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019, by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint). Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation. The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter for the same purpose stated in the Moehrl matter. In July 2020, the DOJ requested the Company provide them with all materials produced for Sitzer, with such request related to and preceding the subsequent civil lawsuit filed and related settlement agreement between the DOJ and NAR in November 2020 (see "Item 1.—Business —Government and Other Regulations—Multiple Listing Services" Rules for additional information). Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative class action filed on January 25, 2021, the plaintiff takes issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claims the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. Rubenstein, Nolan v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Coldwell Banker, Sotheby’s Investment Realty, and Homeservices of America, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut). In this putative class action, the plaintiffs take issue with the same NAR policies related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers) and is a federal racketeering violation (instead of a violation of federal antitrust law). On October 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a statement with the Court outlining the alleged racketeering violations. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 30, 2020 and on January 23, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their objections and opposition. On January 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending its determination of the pending motion to dismiss. Bauman, Bauman and Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl, Sitzer and Rubenstein matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of Realogy’s company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. Securities Litigation Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects. The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this matter with prejudice on January 21, 2021. On February 18, 2021, the parties agreed not to pursue the litigation any further with each party bearing their own costs. Fried v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This is a putative derivative action filed on October 23, 2019 by plaintiff Adam Fried against the Company (as nominal defendant) and certain of its current and former executive officers and members of its Board of Directors (as defendants). The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duties for, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations and prospects as well as unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, disgorgement of improper compensation, certain reforms to the Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures and attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 23, 2019, the Court approved a motion staying this case pending further action in the Tanaskovic matter. The Company disputes the allegations in each of the captioned matters described above and will vigorously defend these actions. Given the early stages of each of these cases, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for this litigation. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable. Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur. In addition, class action lawsuits can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle. As such, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period. * * * Company-Initiated Litigation Realogy Holdings Corp., NRT New York LLC (d/b/a The Corcoran Group), Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate LLC, NRT West, Inc., Martha Turner Properties, L.P. And Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC v. Urban Compass, Inc., and Compass, Inc. (Supreme Court New York, New York County). On July 10, 2019, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, filed a complaint against Urban Compass, Inc. and Compass, Inc. (together, "Compass") alleging misappropriation of trade secrets; tortious interference with contract; intentional and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; unfair competition under New York common law; violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et. seq. (unfair competition); violations of New York General Business Law Section 349 (deceptive acts or practices); violations of New York General Business Law Sections 350 and 350-a (false advertising); conversion; and aiding and abetting breach of contract. The Company seeks, among other things, actual and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company subsequently amended its complaint (which among other things, withdrew the count for aiding and abetting breach of contract and added a count for defamation). Beginning in September 2019, Compass filed a series of motions, which the Company opposed, including a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration with respect to certain claims involving Corcoran. In June 2020, having previously denied certain portions of Compass’ motion to dismiss, the Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss, and denied as moot Compass’ motion to compel arbitration, granting the Company leave to amend the allegations in its complaint that relate to Corcoran’s exclusive listings in order to clarify the claims and damages sought in the action. The Company filed its amended complaint in July 2020. On December 18, 2020, the Court denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by Compass in September 2020 with respect to certain claims in the Company's amended complaint concerning or purportedly related to Corcoran and Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc. Compass subsequently filed an appellate brief appealing the Court's denial and on February 10, 2021, the Appellate Division granted an interim stay on these claims. On January 28, 2021, Compass filed its answer to the Company’s amended complaint, as well as counterclaims and third-party claims against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business relations, defamation, injurious falsehoods, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The third-party claim names a Company-affiliated franchise brokerage and an independent contractor for that franchise. Compass seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, interest and attorneys’ fees. Discovery in the case is continuing. * * * The Company is involved in certain other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. Such litigation, regulatory actions and other proceedings may include, but are not limited to, actions relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements, franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, vicarious liability based upon conduct of individuals or entities outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, antitrust and anti-competition claims (including claims related to NAR or MLS rules regarding buyer broker commissions), general fraud claims (including wire fraud associated with third-party diversion of funds from a brokerage transaction), employment law claims, including claims challenging the classification of independent sales agents as independent contractors, wage and hour related claims, and claims related to business actions responsive to the COVID-19 outbreak and governmental and regulatory directives thereto, and claims alleging violations of RESPA, state consumer fraud statutes or federal consumer protection statutes. While the results of such claims and legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe based on information currently available to us that the final outcome of current proceedings against the Company will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common. While most litigation involves claims against the Company, from time to time the Company commences litigation, including litigation against former employees, franchisees and competitors when it alleges that such persons or entities have breached agreements or engaged in other wrongful conduct. * * * Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates Realogy Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Realogy Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant. The due to former parent balance was $19 million and $18 million at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining contingent tax liabilities, (ii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iii) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations. Tax Matters The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain. Escrow and Trust Deposits As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $585 million and $475 million at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. These escrow and trust deposits are not assets of the Company and, therefore, are excluded from the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits. Purchase Commitments and Minimum Licensing Fees In the normal course of business, the Company makes various commitments to purchase goods or services from specific suppliers, including those related to capital expenditures. The purchase commitments made by the Company as of December 31, 2020 are approximately $201 million. The Company is required to pay a minimum licensing fee to Sotheby’s which began in 2009 and continues through 2054. The annual minimum licensing fee is approximately $2 million per year. The Company is also required to pay a minimum licensing fee to Meredith Corporation for the licensing of the Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate brand. The annual minimum licensing fee began in 2009 at $0.5 million and increased to $4 million in 2014, where it will generally remain through 2058. Future minimum payments for these purchase commitments and minimum licensing fees as of December 31, 2020 are as follows:
Year |  | Amount
2021 |  | $ | 80 |
2022 |  | 38 |
2023 |  | 34 |
2024 |  | 32 |
2025 |  | 22 |
Thereafter |  | 229 |
Total |  | $ | 435 |
Standard Guarantees/Indemnifications In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into numerous agreements that contain standard guarantees and indemnities whereby the Company indemnifies another party for breaches of representations and warranties. In addition, many of these parties are also indemnified against any third-party claim resulting from the transaction that is contemplated in the underlying agreement. Such guarantees or indemnifications are granted under various agreements, including those governing: (i) purchases, sales or outsourcing of assets or businesses, (ii) leases and sales of real estate, (iii) licensing of trademarks, (iv) use of derivatives, and (v) issuances of debt securities. The guarantees or indemnifications issued are for the benefit of the: (i) buyers in sale agreements and sellers in purchase agreements, (ii) landlords in lease contracts, (iii) franchisees in licensing agreements, (iv) financial institutions in derivative contracts, and (v) underwriters in issuances of securities. While some of these guarantees extend only for the duration of the underlying agreement, many survive the expiration of the term of the agreement or extend into perpetuity (unless subject to a legal statute of limitations). There are no specific limitations on the maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these guarantees, nor is the Company able to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments to be made under these guarantees as the triggering events are not subject to predictability. With respect to certain of the aforementioned guarantees, such as indemnifications of landlords against third-party claims for the use of real estate property leased by the Company, the Company maintains insurance coverage that mitigates any potential payments to be made. Other Guarantees/Indemnifications In the normal course of business, the Company coordinates numerous events for its franchisees and thus reserves a number of venues with certain minimum guarantees, such as room rentals at hotels local to the conference center. However, such room rentals are paid by each individual franchisee. If the franchisees do not meet the minimum guarantees, the Company is obligated to fulfill the minimum guaranteed fees. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company would be required to make under such guarantees is approximately $9 million. The Company would only be required to pay this maximum amount if none of the franchisees attended the planned events at the reserved venues. Historically, the Company has not been required to make material payments under these guarantees. Insurance and Self-Insurance At December 31, 2020 and 2019, the Consolidated Balance Sheets include approximately $39 million and $27 million, respectively, of liabilities relating to: (i) self-insured risks for errors and omissions and other legal matters incurred in the ordinary course of business within Realogy Brokerage Group and (ii) premium and claim reserves for the Company’s title underwriting business. The Company may also be subject to legal claims arising from the handling of escrow transactions and closings. Realogy Brokerage Group carries errors and omissions insurance for errors made during the real estate settlement process of $15 million in the aggregate, subject to a deductible of $1 million per occurrence. In addition, the Company carries an additional errors and omissions insurance policy for Realogy Holdings Corp. and its subsidiaries for errors made for real estate related services up to $45 million in the aggregate, subject to a deductible of $2.5 million per occurrence. This policy also provides excess coverage to Realogy Brokerage Group creating an aggregate limit of $60 million, subject to Realogy Brokerage Group's deductible of $1 million per occurrence. The Company issues title insurance policies which provide coverage for real property to mortgage lenders and buyers of real property. When acting as a title agent issuing a policy on behalf of an underwriter, assuming no negligence on part of the title agent, the Company is not liable for losses under those policies but rather the title insurer is typically liable for such losses. The title underwriter which the Company acquired in January 2006 typically underwrites title insurance policies of up to $1.5 million. For policies in excess of $1.5 million, the Company may obtain a reinsurance policy from a national underwriter to reinsure the excess amount. The Company, as an underwriter, manages our claims losses through strict agent vetting, clear underwriting guidelines, training and frequent communications with our agents. Fraud, defalcation and misconduct by employees are also risks inherent in the business. The Company is the custodian of cash deposited by customers with specific instructions as to its disbursement from escrow, trust and account servicing files. The Company maintains fidelity insurance covering the loss or theft of funds of up to $30 million per occurrence, subject to a deductible of $750 thousand per occurrence. The Company also maintains self-insurance arrangements relating to health and welfare, workers’ compensation, auto and general liability in addition to other benefits provided to the Company’s employees. The accruals for these self-insurance arrangements totaled approximately $12 million and $15 million for December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

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, contingencies, and guarantees. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2155896 Reference 2: 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 3: 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_CommitmentsContingenciesAndGuaranteesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration