XML 58 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Ambac is responsible for leases on the rental of office space. The lease agreements, the initial terms of which expire periodically through December 2015, contain provisions for scheduled periodic rent increases and are accounted for as operating leases. An estimate of future net minimum lease payments in each of the next five years ending December 31, and the periods thereafter, is as follows:
|  | Amount |
2014 |  | $ | 5,471 |
2015 |  |  | 5,374 |
2016 |  |  | — |
2017 |  |  | — |
2018 |  |  | — |
All later years |  |  | — |
|  | $ | 10,845 |
Rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $5,293 and $4,685 for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The Segregated Account and Wisconsin Rehabilitation Proceeding On March 24, 2010, Ambac Assurance established a segregated account (the “Segregated Account”) and allocated to the Segregated Account certain financial guaranty insurance policies and other contingent liabilities, certain claims and other rights, and certain equity interests in subsidiaries. An insurance rehabilitation proceeding (the “Rehabilitation Proceeding”) was commenced with respect to the Segregated Account in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County (the “Rehabilitation Court”) on March 24, 2010 by the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (the “Commissioner”) and the Rehabilitation Court entered an order of rehabilitation for the Segregated Account, appointing the Commissioner as Rehabilitator, and entered orders enjoining certain actions that could have an adverse effect on the financial condition of the Segregated Account. Various third parties have filed motions or objections in the Rehabilitation Court and/or moved to intervene in the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceeding. On January 24, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued its Decision and Final Order Confirming the Rehabilitator’s Plan of Rehabilitation, with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Confirmation Order”). Notices of appeal from the Confirmation Order were filed by various parties, including policyholders. These appeals challenged various provisions of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan and actions the Rehabilitator or the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance had taken in formulating the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan. These appeals from the Confirmation Order were consolidated with earlier-filed appeals challenging, among other things, the issuance of injunctive relief and a settlement between Ambac Assurance and various financial institutions. On October 24, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the Confirmation Order and the Rehabilitation Court’s rejection of the objections filed by various third parties before entry of the Confirmation Order. On November 22, 2013, petitions seeking discretionary review of this ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court were filed by (1) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for certain insured bonds issued by the Las Vegas Monorail Co., and four Eaton Vance entities claiming to own some number of these bonds; and (2) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, and U.S. Bank National Association, all as trustees for certain insured bonds or obligations. Additionally, on December 6, 2013, the Customer Asset Protection Company (“CAPCO”) filed a Response to these two petitions for review in which CAPCO took no position on whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court should grant the petitions, but asked the court to allow further consideration of Wis. Stat. § 645.68 if it does grant the petitions for review. The Rehabilitator responded by opposing further review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not yet issued a determination on whether to grant the petitions for discretionary review. On August 17, 2012, the Rehabilitator filed two motions with the Rehabilitation Court relating to policies allocated to the Segregated Account and issued in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”). The first motion (the “Injunction Scope Motion”) sought to confirm the scope of the relief issued by the Rehabilitation Court under its March 24, 2010 Order for Temporary Injunctive Relief, as supplemented by its November 8, 2010 Order for Temporary Supplemental Injunctive Relief and made permanent by its January 24, 2011 Decision and Final Order Confirming the Rehabilitator’s Plan of Rehabilitation (the “Injunction”). On September 12, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court approved by order the Injunction Scope Motion, confirming that one of the effects of the Injunction is, among other things, to prevent Ambac Assurance and the Segregated Account from losing any rights to obtain relief for counterparties’ breaches of the transaction documents relating to RMBS and to prohibit counterparties to such transaction documents from taking any actions to prevent or attempt to prevent Ambac Assurance and/or the Segregated Account from exercising or enforcing any rights (including the right to demand repurchases of certain non-compliant loans), interests and/or claims pursuant to these transaction documents due to the existence of the rehabilitation proceedings and/or the occurrence of any acts taken or not taken or authorized to be taken pursuant thereto. The time to appeal the Court’s September 12th Order has expired and no appeals have been taken. On January 17, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to obtain court approval to disburse settlement proceeds as permitted policy claim payments to specific policyholders as required by a settlement entered into with Residential Capital, LLC and related debtors in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “ResCap Settlement”). In addition to seeking this approval with respect to the ResCap Settlement, the motion seeks the court’s confirmation of the Rehabilitator’s authority to distribute proceeds from settlements of RMBS Remediation Claims (as defined in the motion) as he deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Segregated Account and such distributions may include (i) paying claims by making payments in excess of the then applicable claims cash payment percentage, and/or (ii) paying all or portions of unpaid permitted policy claims. On February 7, 2014, three RMBS trustees jointly filed a partial objection to the motion. On February 13, 2014, the court heard argument on this motion and issued an order approving the Rehabilitator’s motion. Litigation Filed Against Ambac County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, second amended complaint filed on or about August 23, 2011) (“Alameda Complaint”); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Contra Costa Complaint”); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Olympic Club Complaint”). The Contra Costa Complaint is brought on behalf of five California municipal entities and the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. The Alameda Complaint is brought on behalf of nineteen California municipal entities. The Olympic Club Complaint is brought on behalf of the non-profit Olympic Club. The three actions make similar allegations against Ambac Assurance, various other financial guarantee insurance companies and employees thereof (collectively with Ambac Assurance, the “Bond Insurer Defendants”), and, in the case of the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, the major credit rating agencies (the “Rating Agencies”). The actions allege that (1) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants colluded with the Rating Agencies to perpetuate a “dual rating system” pursuant to which the Rating Agencies rated the debt obligations of municipal issuers differently from corporate debt obligations, thereby keeping municipal ratings artificially low relative to corporate ratings; (2) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and failed to disclose the extent of the insurers’ respective exposures to mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations; and (3) as a result of these actions, plaintiffs incurred higher interest costs and bond insurance premiums in respect of their respective bond issues. Ambac Financial Group was originally a defendant in each of these actions, but on November 22, 2010, Ambac Financial Group was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant by the plaintiffs in each of these actions. Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the current amended complaints on September 21, 2011, which was denied on October 20, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a special motion to strike the current amended complaints under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16). A hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Court ruled that the complaints were governed by the Anti-SLAPP statute to the extent they alleged conspiracy to influence the rating agencies’ rating methodologies, but not to the extent that the complaints alleged false or misleading statements or nondisclosures. After oral argument on March 21, 2013, the court dismissed claims related to the conspiracy branch of the complaint under the California Antitrust Law (the Cartwright Act) and after oral argument on April 22, 2013 denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. The court entered an order to this effect on July 9, 2013. On September 9, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the July 9 th Order and on September 30, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of cross-appeal. On September 9, 2013, the parties filed motions for attorneys’ fees in connection with defendants’ demurrers. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for fees from the bench on November 8, 2013. Defendants’ motions remain pending. NPS LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed on July 8, 2008). This action was brought by NPS LLC (“NPS”), the owner of Gillette Stadium, the home stadium of the New England Patriots, with respect to the termination of a financial guarantee insurance policy issued by Ambac Assurance relating to auction rate bonds issued by NPS in 2006. Due to well-documented disruption of the auction rate securities market, the interest rate on the bonds floated to high levels and NPS therefore refinanced the bonds in a fixed rate financing without Ambac Assurance’s involvement. Pursuant to the insurance agreement between NPS and Ambac Assurance, NPS is obligated to pay a “make whole” premium to Ambac Assurance equal to the present value of the installment premiums that Ambac Assurance would have earned through 2017 if the bonds had not been redeemed (approximately $2,700). NPS alleged that it is not liable to pay the “make whole” premium because Ambac Assurance misrepresented its financial condition at the time the bonds were issued and that the alleged misrepresentations induced NPS to enter into the insurance agreement, thereby causing NPS to incur additional interest costs in connection with the bonds. NPS also alleged that Ambac Assurance was liable to NPS for the additional interest costs incurred by NPS which resulted from the disruption of the auction rate securities market. On February 25, 2010, the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for summary judgment as to all of NPS’s claims and Ambac Assurance’s counterclaim for the “make whole” premium and interest and costs. The parties are awaiting a determination by the court of the amount of Ambac Assurance’s legal fees that NPS will be required to pay. NPS has stated that it intends to appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Ambac Assurance. Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, filed on November 10, 2009). This action alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, deceit, suppression of truth and negligence. Plaintiff claims that, in connection with plaintiff’s purchase of a debt service reserve fund surety bond from Ambac Assurance in March 2007 with respect to its bond issue, Ambac Assurance misrepresented the stability of its “AAA” financial strength ratings and subsequently breached a covenant to maintain its “AAA” ratings, thereby causing loss to plaintiff when it was required to replace the Ambac Assurance surety bond upon the downgrade of Ambac Assurance’s ratings. On April 1, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On August 5, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of all claims. The time for plaintiff to appeal has expired. Broadbill Partners LP et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed November 8, 2012). Plaintiffs, alleged owners of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, commenced litigation against Ambac Assurance asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, resulting trust and rescission related to Ambac Assurance’s exercise in or about December 2008 of rights under put option agreements with certain trusts. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the improper exercise of such rights, Ambac Assurance received approximately $800,000 in trust assets from the trusts in exchange for nearly worthless shares of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, which were thereafter delivered to the holders of the securities issued by the trusts. Plaintiffs seek damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, rescission and attorney’s fees. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2013, which the plaintiffs opposed. The Court held oral argument on September 11, 2013. The court has not yet decided the motion. Ambac Assurance has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. Ambac Assurance has complied with all such inquiries and requests for information. Ambac is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although Ambac’s litigation with present or former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for, among other things, termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. It is not reasonably possible to predict whether additional suits will be filed or whether additional inquiries or requests for information will be made, and it is also not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, inquiries or requests for information. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in these or other proceedings. Legal accruals for certain litigation against Ambac which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management’s estimated range of loss for such matters, are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the remaining litigation matters Ambac is defending that do not meet the “probable and reasonably estimable” accrual threshold and where no loss estimates have been provided above, management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from unfavorable outcomes but, under some circumstances, adverse results in any such proceedings could be material to our business, operations, financial position, profitability or cash flows. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously; however, the Company is not able to predict the outcomes of these actions. Litigation Filed by Ambac In the ordinary course of their businesses, certain of Ambac’s subsidiaries assert claims in legal proceedings against third parties to recover losses already paid and/or mitigate future losses. The amounts recovered and/or losses avoided which may result from these proceedings is uncertain, although recoveries and/or losses avoided in any one or more of these proceedings during any quarter or fiscal year could be material to Ambac’s results of operations in that quarter or fiscal year. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Adelanto Public Utility Authority (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, filed on June 1, 2009). Ambac Assurance commenced this action to recover from the defendant on account of Ambac Assurance’s payment under a swap termination surety bond. The defendant counterclaimed (as amended on June 12, 2010), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of California insurance statutes, fraud and promissory estoppel. Defendant claims that, in connection with defendant’s purchase of a bond insurance policy with respect to its variable rate bond issue in September 2005, Ambac Assurance misrepresented the stability of its “AAA” financial strength ratings and subsequently breached an implied covenant by underwriting risky structured obligations that ultimately led to the loss of the “AAA” ratings. On November 14, 2011, the court dismissed the defendant’s amended counterclaim in its entirety upon the motion of Ambac Assurance, and discovery commenced in December 2011. Both parties moved for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery. On January 11, 2013 the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for summary judgment on all claims except Ambac Assurance’s claim for specific performance (as to which no summary judgment motion was made) and denied defendant’s motion. At a March 13, 2013 conference, the court requested that the parties prepare submissions regarding the amount of damages and fees Ambac Assurance is entitled to recover. Following a hearing on August 23, 2013, the court issued an order on August 29, 2013, awarding Ambac interest on the termination payment as well as legal fees and expenses as of March 31, 2013. In order to expedite the disposition of any appeals, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for the entry of final judgment for the claims upon which summary judgment was awarded and the defendant has moved for the entry of final judgment on the dismissal in 2011 of all its counterclaims against Ambac Assurance, with each party announcing that it did not oppose the motion of the other; the parties are awaiting action on their respective motions. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. City of Detroit, Michigan, Kevyn D. Orr, John Naglick, Michael Jamison and Cheryl Johnson (United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, filed on November 8, 2013). Ambac Assurance commenced this litigation, which relates to certain ad valorem taxes that the City levies and collects, in connection with the City of Detroit’s bankruptcy proceeding. On December 9, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Ambac Assurance filed an amended complaint on December 23, 2013. In its amended complaint, Ambac Assurance seeks a declaratory judgment that, among other things, (i) under Michigan law, the defendants must segregate the ad valorem tax revenues pledged to pay the City’s general obligation bonds insured by Ambac Assurance and not commingle them with City funds, and such ad valorem tax revenues are restricted funds and cannot be used for any purpose other than to satisfy the City’s payment obligations with respect to its general obligation bonds; (ii) the City lacks any equitable or beneficial property interest in such ad valorem tax revenues and the bondholders have equitable and beneficial property interests therein; (iii) the City’s general obligation bonds insured by Ambac Assurance are secured by, and the bondholders have, a statutory lien on such ad valorem tax revenues, or in the alternative, a security interest therein; (iv) a portion of the ad valorem tax revenues are “special revenues” under the United States Bankruptcy Code and must be applied in accordance therewith; and (v) the City’s diversion of the ad valorem tax revenues or a grant of any post-petition interest therein to any other person without just compensation is an unlawful taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On January 17, 2014, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Ambac Assurance opposed the motion. The court heard oral argument on February 19, 2014. The court has not yet decided the motion. In connection with Ambac Assurance’s efforts to seek redress for breaches of representations and warranties and fraud related to the information provided by both the underwriters and the sponsors of various transactions and for failure to comply with the obligation by the sponsors to repurchase ineligible loans, Ambac Assurance has filed various lawsuits:
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed February 17, 2011). This case is the continuation of a case that was originally filed on November 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York but that was dismissed from federal court after Ambac Assurance was granted leave to amend its complaint to add certain new claims (but not others) and a new party, which deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over the litigation. After the decision by the federal judge, dated February 8, 2011, Ambac Assurance re-filed the suit in New York state court on February 17, 2011. On July 18, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a First Amended Complaint in its state-court litigation. In its state-court action, Ambac Assurance asserts claims for breach of contract, indemnification and reimbursement against EMC, as well as claims of fraudulent conduct by EMC and J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. In its First Amended Complaint, Ambac Assurance asserts an additional claim for breach of contract against EMC and a claim for successor liability against a new defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The Defendants filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2011, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed March 30, 2012 and amended on August 14, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for fraudulent inducement and breaches of contract against EMC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as well as claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as EMC’s successor in interest, arising from the defendants’ misrepresentations and breaches of contractual warranties regarding certain transactions that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendants (described above). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 28, 2012, which Ambac Assurance opposed on October 26, 2012. Oral argument was held on February 21, 2013. On June 13, 2013, the court dismissed Ambac Assurance’s contractual claims but not its claims for fraudulent inducement or successor liability. On July 8, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed its notice of appeal. In the interim, fact discovery is ongoing.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. First Franklin Financial Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed April 16, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2012, which Ambac opposed on September 21, 2012. Oral argument was held on May 6, 2013. On July 18, 2013 the court dismissed Ambac Assurance’s claims for indemnification and limited Ambac Assurance’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but did not dismiss Ambac Assurance’s other contractual claims or fraudulent inducement claim. On August 21, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal, and on August 30, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of cross-appeal. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. (a.k.a. Bank of America Home Loans) and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance filed an Amended Complaint on September 8, 2011. Ambac Assurance alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, and breach of representations and warranties, requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages, and asserted a successor liability claim against Bank of America. On May 28, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a Second Amended Complaint adding an alter ego claim against Bank of America alleging that, because Bank of America and Countrywide are alter egos of one another, Bank of America is responsible for Countrywide’s liabilities to Ambac. The defendants served their answers on July 31, 2013. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Capital One, N.A., as successor by merger to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on October 24, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for breach of contract, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 6, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed in a brief filed on February 20, 2013. The motion was fully briefed and filed on March 5, 2013. The court held oral argument on March 7, 2013 and has not yet decided the motion.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on April 15, 2013). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for material breach of contract and for the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts, as well as damages. Ambac Assurance has also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court held oral argument on November 13, 2013. The court has not yet decided the motion. Discovery has been stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.

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