XML 88 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.0.814

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings On April 5, 2011, Wesley West Minerals, Ltd. and Longfellow Ranch Partners, LP filed suit against the Company and SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (collectively, the “SandRidge Entities”) in the 83rd District Court of Pecos County, Texas. The plaintiffs, who have leased mineral rights to the SandRidge Entities in Pecos County, allege that the SandRidge Entities have not properly paid royalties on all volumes of natural gas and CO 2 produced from the acreage leased from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also allege that the SandRidge Entities have inappropriately failed to pay royalties on CO 2 produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from the treatment of natural gas at Occidental Petroleum Corporation’s (“Occidental”) CO 2 treatment plant in Pecos County, Texas the (“Century Plant”). The plaintiffs seek approximately $45.5 million in actual damages for the period of time between January 2004 and December 2011, punitive damages and a declaration that the SandRidge Entities must pay royalties on CO 2 produced from the plaintiffs' acreage that results from treatment of natural gas at the Century Plant. The Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas (“GLO”) is named as an additional defendant in the lawsuit as some of the affected oil and natural gas leases described in the plaintiffs' allegations cover mineral classified lands in which the GLO is entitled to one-half of the royalties attributable to such leases. The GLO has filed a cross-claim against the SandRidge Entities asserting the same claims as the plaintiffs with respect to the leases covering mineral classified lands and seeking approximately $13.0 million in actual damages, inclusive of penalties and interest. On February 5, 2013, the Company received a favorable summary judgment ruling that effectively removes a majority of the plaintiffs' and GLO's claims. On April 29, 2013, the court entered an order allowing for an interlocutory appeal of its summary judgment ruling. The plaintiffs appealed the rulings to the Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso. On November 19, 2014, that court issued its opinion, which affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment rulings in part, but reversing them in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment rulings in the SandRidge Entities’ favor against the GLO. The court also affirmed the summary judgment rulings in the SandRidge Entities’ favor against Wesley West Minerals, Ltd., on the largest oil and gas lease involved in the case, which accounted for much of the total damages the plaintiffs are claiming. The court reversed certain rulings on other leases, thus deciding those matters for the plaintiffs. The parties have petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining issues in the trial court, as well as future appellate proceedings. At the time of the rulings on summary judgment, the lawsuit was still in the discovery stage and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses, if any, associated with the remaining causes of action and those rulings reversed by the Court of Appeals cannot be made until all of the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to such claims and the SandRidge Entities' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. Between December 2012 and March 2013, seven putative shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal court in Oklahoma:
• | Arthur I. Levine v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on December 19, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Deborah Depuy v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Paul Elliot, on Behalf of the Paul Elliot IRA R/O, v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant filed on January 29, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Dale Hefner v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 4, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
• | Rocky Romano v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on January 22, 2013 in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
• | Joan Brothers v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on February 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
• | Lisa Ezell, Jefferson L. Mangus, and Tyler D. Mangus v. Tom L. Ward, et al., and SandRidge Energy, Inc., Nominal Defendant - filed on March 22, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Each lawsuit identified above was filed derivatively on behalf of the Company and names as defendants current and former directors of the Company. The Hefner lawsuit also names as defendants certain current and former directors and senior executive officers of the Company. All seven lawsuits assert overlapping claims - generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, mismanaged the Company, wasted corporate assets, and engaged in, facilitated or approved self-dealing transactions in breach of their fiduciary obligations. The Depuy lawsuit also alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company allegedly filing and distributing certain misleading proxy statements. The lawsuits seek, among other relief, injunctive relief related to the Company's corporate governance and unspecified damages. On April 10, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma consolidated the Levine, Depuy, Elliot, Brothers, and Ezell actions (the “Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation”) under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation,” appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint by May 1, 2013. On June 3, 2013, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 11, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 9, 2013, in which plaintiffs allege that: (i) the Company’s former Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Tom Ward, breached his fiduciary duties by usurping corporate opportunities, (ii) certain of the Company’s current and former directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, (iii) Mr. Ward and certain of the Company’s current and former directors wasted corporate assets, (iv) certain entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward aided and abetted Mr. Ward’s breaches of fiduciary duties, (v) Mr. Ward and entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward misappropriated the Company’s confidential and proprietary information, and (vi) entities allegedly affiliated with Mr. Ward were unjustly enriched. On November 15, 2013, the Company and the individual defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On September 22, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Company and the director defendants. The court also granted in part and denied in part the respective motions to dismiss filed on behalf of the other defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Board of Directors for the Company formed a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”), composed of two independent and disinterested Company directors, and delegated absolute and final authority to the SLC to review and investigate the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation and in the Hefner action, and to determine whether or how those claims should be asserted on the Company’s behalf. The parties agreed to stay the Hefner action pending the review and investigation by the SLC. On May 8, 2013, the court stayed the Romano action pending further order of the court. On October 29, 2014, the court granted plaintiff’s application to dismiss the action without prejudice. On October 7, 2015, the derivative plaintiffs in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation, the Special Litigation Committee, and the individual defendants in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Tom Ward, Jim Brewer, Everett Dobson, William Gilliland, Daniel Jordan, Roy Oliver Jr., and Jeffrey Serota), executed a Stipulation of Settlement, which would result in a partial settlement of the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation by settling all claims against the individual defendants, subject to certain terms and conditions, including the approval of the court. Under the terms of the proposed partial settlement, the Company would implement or agree to maintain certain corporate governance reforms, and the insurers for the individual defendants would pay $38.0 million to an escrow fund, which would be used to pay certain expenses arising from pending securities litigation and, to the extent funds remain after paying such expenses, would be paid to the Company without any further restrictions on the Company’s use of such funds. The proposed partial settlement expressly provides, among other terms, that the settling defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and are entering into the settlement solely to avoid the costs, disruption, uncertainty, and risk of further litigation. The proposed partial settlement would not settle any of the derivative plaintiffs’ claims against non-settling parties WCT Resources, L.L.C., 192 Investments, L.L.C., and TLW Land & Cattle, L.P in the Federal Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On October 9, 2015, the court issued an Order granting preliminary approval to the partial settlement and establishing procedures for notice to shareholders and consideration of any shareholder objections to the partial settlement. The court also set a hearing for final approval of the partial settlement on December 18, 2015. An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with the Hefner action cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain current and former executive officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption “In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation” (the “Securities Litigation”) and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the “Mississippian Trusts”) in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward. On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against the Mississippian Trusts and the underwriter defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and the individual current and former officers and directors, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint. On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in which plaintiffs assert federal securities claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the period between February 24, 2011, and November 8, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, the Company’s capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company’s former CEO Tom Ward. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation. On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC (“SandRidge E&P”), SandRidge Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest. On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October 11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs’ Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will establish a settlement fund from which to pay participating plaintiffs’ claims as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final negotiations between the parties and court approval. During the three-month period ended September 30, 2015, the Company established a $5.1 million reserve for this lawsuit. As previously disclosed, on December 18, 2013 the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with an ongoing investigation of possible violations of antitrust laws in connection with the purchase or lease of land, oil or natural gas rights. The transactions that have been the subject of the inquiry date from 2012 and prior years. On April 7, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice notified the Company that it is a target of a grand jury investigation in the Western District of Oklahoma concerning violations of federal antitrust law. The Company is continuing to respond to the government’s requests in connection with the investigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation, or any range of loss that could be associated with the resolution of any possible criminal charges or civil claims that may be brought against the Company; however, any governmental action or resolution thereof could be material to the Company. The Company is cooperating with the investigation. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012 (the “Class Period”), and (b) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times during the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital expenditures. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. On July 30, 2015, Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the named defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) at any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the Plan’s behalf pursuant to ERISA §§ 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the investment of the Plan’s assets in SandRidge stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company’s common stock was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings. On August 19, 2015, Christina A. Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all participants for whose individual accounts the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) held shares of SandRidge stock from November 8, 2012, to the present, inclusive. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the Plan’s behalf pursuant to ERISA §§ 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the investment of the Plan’s assets in SandRidge stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company. On September 10, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Gernandt action. On September 14, 2015, Richard A. McWilliams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the named defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in, or beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) at any time between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose Plan accounts included investments in SandRidge stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the Plan’s behalf pursuant to ERISA §§ 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plan and to the Plan participants by allowing the investment of the Plan’s assets in SandRidge stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company’s stock was artificially inflated because, among other things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core holdings. On September 24, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with Gernandt action. On October 15, 2015, the Court ordered the plaintiffs in the consolidated Gernandt action to file a consolidated complaint by November 24, 2015. The Company intends to defend this consolidated lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly, an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants’ defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not established any reserves relating to this action. In addition to the litigation described above, the Company is a defendant in lawsuits from time to time in the normal course of business. While the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the reasonably possible losses of such matters, individually and in the aggregate, are not material. Additionally, the Company believes the probable final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Treating Agreement Commitment The Company is party to a 30-year treating agreement with Occidental for the removal of CO 2 from natural gas volumes delivered by the Company. Under the agreement, the Company is required to deliver a total of approximately 3,200 Bcf of CO 2 during the agreement period. The Company is obligated to pay Occidental $0.25 per Mcf to the extent minimum annual CO 2 volume requirements are not met. Through December 31, 2014, the Company had delivered to Occidental 54.7 Bcf of CO 2, which is 300.1 Bcf less than the cumulative minimum annual CO 2 volume requirements for the same period and had accrued associated annual shortfall penalties of approximately $75.0 million. If such under delivered volumes are not made up with commensurate over deliveries in the future, the Company will be obligated to pay Occidental $0.70 per Mcf (approximately $210.1 million total) in 2041, which amount has not been accrued by the Company as a liability as the Company does not currently believe such payment is probable. Based upon the quantity of CO 2 delivered by the Company during the period from January 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015 and the estimated quantities the Company expects to deliver during the remainder of 2015, the Company accrued estimated annual under delivery penalties ($0.25 per Mcf) of approximately $8.8 million and $26.0 million for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2015, respectively. Based on current projected natural gas production levels, the Company expects to accrue between approximately $31.0 million and $38.0 million during the year ending December 31, 2015 for amounts related to the Company’s anticipated shortfall in meeting its 2015 annual delivery obligations. The Company has not accrued any liability for the $0.70 per Mcf fee (approximately $100.7 million total) that would be due in 2041 if the estimated shortfall for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2015 is not made up in the future as the Company does not currently believe such payment is probable. If CO 2 volumes delivered to Occidental do not materially increase from current levels, the Company will have the right, beginning in 2020, to reduce future minimum annual CO 2 volume requirements under the agreement by paying Occidental an amount equal to the present value of $0.70 multiplied by such reduced CO 2 volume requirements as designated by the Company. As of September 30, 2015, if the Company were to cease delivering natural gas for processing and made no future CO 2 deliveries from such date until 2020, the Company would be required to pay annual delivery shortfall penalties, in the aggregate, of approximately $289.1 million for the contract years 2012 through 2019, which includes $101.0 million for penalties incurred through September 30, 2015. Further, by paying approximately $290.1 million in 2020, which includes the present value of $0.70 multiplied by delivery shortfalls incurred through such date, the Company could adjust the future CO 2 volume requirements to zero. This amount will continue to decrease as future deliveries of CO 2 are made. The Company also may terminate the treating agreement at any time, which would require a termination payment by the Company to Occidental of an amount equal to (a) the present value of $0.70 multiplied by the remaining CO 2 volumes required to be delivered under the agreement, plus (b) Occidental’s current net book value of the Century Plant. The Company has first priority on daily available processing capacity for properly nominated and delivered volumes; however, based on cumulative delivered volumes as of the balance sheet date, if the Company makes no further deliveries from that date until 2025, beginning in 2025 the Century Plant, even if fully utilized, would not have adequate capacity to allow the Company to deliver CO 2 volumes attributable to previously incurred delivery shortfalls at that time. Risks and Uncertainties The Company’s revenue, profitability and future growth are substantially dependent upon the prevailing and future prices for oil and natural gas, which depend on numerous factors beyond the Company’s control such as overall oil and natural gas production and inventories in relevant markets, economic conditions, the global political environment, regulatory developments and competition from other energy sources. Oil and natural gas prices historically have been volatile, and may be subject to significant fluctuations in the future. The Company enters into commodity derivative arrangements in order to mitigate a portion of the effect of this price volatility on the Company’s cash flows. See Note 8 for the Company’s open oil and natural gas derivative contracts. Production targets contained in certain gathering and treating agreements in effect at September 30, 2015 require the Company to incur capital expenditures or make associated shortfall payments. The Company depends on cash flows from operating activities and, as necessary, borrowings under its senior credit facility to fund its capital expenditures. Additionally, the Company may use proceeds from the issuance of equity and debt securities in the capital markets and from sales or other monetizations of assets to fund its capital expenditures. Based on current cash balances and cash flows from operating activities, the Company expects to be able to fund its planned capital expenditures budget, debt service requirements and working capital needs in 2015; however, if the current depressed oil or natural gas prices persist for a prolonged period or further decline from current levels, they would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, cash flows and quantities of oil, natural gas and NGL reserves that may be economically produced, which could adversely impact the Company’s ability to comply with the financial covenants under its senior credit facility. See Note 7 for discussion of the financial covenants in the senior credit facility. On July 23, 2015, the Company received notification from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) that the price of its common stock had fallen below the NYSE’s listing standard, which requires that the average closing price not be less than $1.00 per share over a period of 30 consecutive trading days. The Company intends to consider available alternatives to cure the stock price deficiency and return to compliance with the NYSE continued listing requirement. If the Company’s common stock ultimately were to be delisted, it could adversely impact the Company’s ability to generate funds from equity financing.

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

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://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 2: 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=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: 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 4: 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 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