XML 149 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2014
Notes |
Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 9) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranged from $25,000 to $100,000 during the years 2014 and 2013. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies having insurance in force amounting to approximately $1,462,340,000 (unaudited) at December 31, 2014 and approximately $1,566,336,000 (unaudited) at December 31, 2013. Reinsurance Agreement with American Republic Insurance Company On February 11, 2015, the Company signed a coinsurance agreement to reinsure certain life insurance policies from American Republic Insurance Company (“American Republic”). The policies were previously reinsured by North America Life under a coinsurance agreement between World Insurance Company (“World Insurance”) and North America Life entered into on July 22, 2009 which was commuted. World Insurance was subsequently purchased by and merged into American Republic. The current coinsurance agreement is between the Company and American Republic and became effective on January 1, 2015. As part of the coinsurance agreement, American Republic transferred all contractual obligations and risks to the Company and the Company took control of $15,004,771 of assets in a trust account held by Texas Capital Bank as the trustee. Reinsurance Agreement with LJA Insurance Company On December 19, 2014, the Company entered into a Coinsurance Funds Withheld Reinsurance Agreement with LJA Insurance Company (“LJA Insurance”), a Republic of the Marshall Islands domiciled insurance company. This agreement was effective November 1, 2014. Under the terms of the funds withheld agreement, the Company ceded to LJA Insurance 100% of three blocks of deferred annuities in the amount of $4,337,000 and retained the assets and recorded a funds held under coinsurance liability for the same amount. LJA Insurance agreed to pay the Company an initial ceding commission of $60,000 and an asset management fee of $16,000 per quarter to administer the policies. The Company will also receive a 90% experience refund for any profits from the business. The Company has the right to recapture the business by giving LJA Insurance 90 days written notice, or it may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties. Reinsurance Terminated with North America Life Insurance Company On December 1, 2013, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through Trans-western Life Insurance Company (“Trans-Western Life”), recaptured additional policies of Trans-Western Life from North American Life Insurance Company (“North American Life”). On December 10, 2013, pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $2,500,000, less a ceding commission of $34,000 to Security National Life. On February 13, 2014, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through Trans-Western Life, recaptured the remaining policies of Trans-Western Life from North American Life. Pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $4,684,000 less a ceding commission of $57,000 to Security National Life, and the Reinsurance Agreement between Trans Western Life and North America Life was terminated. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements The mortgage industry has seen potential loan losses increase. Future loan losses are extremely difficult to estimate, especially in the current market. However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate its losses on loans sold. The amounts accrued for loan losses in years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 were $3,053,000 and $1,846,000, respectively. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, the balances were $1,718,000 and $5,507,000, respectively. Final Settlement with Wells Fargo On April 7, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage Company ("SecurityNational Mortgage"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Security National Financial Corporation, entered into the Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") with Wells Fargo Funding, Inc. ("Wells Fargo Funding"). On December 4, 2014, SecurityNational Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank (which was assigned Wells Fargo Funding's interest in the Settlement Agreement) entered into a Second Addendum (the "Addendum") to the Settlement Agreement, in which SecurityNational Mortgage agreed to make a final payment to Wells Fargo Bank by December 30, 2014, to satisfy and terminate its remaining payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement. On December 29, 2014, SecurityNational Mortgage made the final payment to Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to the terms of the Addendum from its loan loss reserve, thereby satisfying in full its payment obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Settlement with Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. On December 23, 2014, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide Home Loans”), Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), successor-in-interest by the April 27, 2009 de jure merger to Countrywide Bank, FSB. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage is required to pay a settlement amount to Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans, jointly as settlement purchasers. On December 23, 2014, SecurityNational Mortgage made the full and final settlement payment from its mortgage loan loss reserve to Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans by wire transfer. The payment of the settlement amount is in full and final settlement of the claims and disputes between Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans, and SecurityNational Mortgage under certain loan purchase agreements. Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans and SecurityNational Mortgage are parties to the Loan Purchase Agreement, originally entered into between Countrywide Funding Corporation and SecurityNational Mortgage, dated September 27, 1994; and Countrywide Home Loans and SecurityNational Mortgage are parties to the Home Equity Loan Purchase Agreement, dated January 15, 1997, including any amendments or modifications to such agreements (collectively, the “Loan Purchase Agreements”). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage, Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans agreed to full, complete and general mutual releases with respect to the alleged claims and disputes. In particular, Bank of America and Countrywide Home Loans, as settlement purchasers, and SecurityNational Mortgage Company, as settlement seller, and their respective parent and subsidiary entities, predecessors, successors and affiliates agree to fully, finally and completely release and forever discharge each other and their respective parent and subsidiary entities, predecessors, successors, affiliates, assigns and their respective current and past directors, officers, employees, representatives and agents from any and all claims and disputes under the Loan Purchase Agreements. The settlement agreement is subject to an exception for pervasive or system-wide fraud. Mortgage Loan Loss Demands Third Party Investors There have been assertions in third party investor correspondence that SecurityNational Mortgage sold mortgage loans that allegedly contained borrower misrepresentations or experienced early payment defaults, or that were otherwise allegedly defective or not in compliance with agreements between SecurityNational Mortgage and the third party investors consisting principally of financial institutions. As a result of these claims, third party investors have made demands that SecurityNational Mortgage repurchase certain alleged defective mortgage loans that were sold to such investors or indemnify them against any losses related to such loans. The total amount of potential claims by third party investors is difficult to determine. The Company has reserved and accrued $1,702,000 as of December 31, 2014 to settle all such investor related claims. The Company believes that the reserve for mortgage loan loss, which includes provisions for probable losses and indemnification on mortgage loans sold to investors, is reasonable based on available information. Moreover, the Company has successfully negotiated acceptable settlement terms with other third party investors that asserted claims for mortgage loan losses against SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with the repurchase demands and notices of potential claims from third party investors. Furthermore, SecurityNational Mortgage believes there is potential to resolve the alleged claims by the third party investors on acceptable terms. If SecurityNational Mortgage is unable to resolve such claims on acceptable terms, legal action may ensue. In the event of legal action by any third party investor, SecurityNational Mortgage believes it has significant defenses to any such action and intends to vigorously defend itself against such action. JP Morgan Chase Indemnification Demand The Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, SecurityNational Mortgage, received a notice of claim for indemnification dated December 21, 2011, from JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“JP Morgan Chase”) on behalf of EMC Mortgage, LLC (“EMC Mortgage”), relating to 21 mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage allegedly purchased as a third party investor from SecurityNational Mortgage. The notice also referenced a guaranty agreement, dated February 23, 2006, by the Company for the benefit of EMC Mortgage. The indemnification notice additionally stated that EMC Mortgage had been named in a lawsuit by the Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR2 (the “Trust”), which was filed on September 13, 2011 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit the Trust brought against EMC Mortgage contends that more than 800 residential mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust (including the 21 loans allegedly originated by SecurityNational Mortgage) contained breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans, as well as defaults and foreclosures in many of such loans. As a result of the alleged breaches of representations and warranties by EMC Mortgage, the complaint requests that EMC Mortgage be ordered to repurchase from the Trust any loans for which it breached its representations and warranties, in the amount of the mortgage loans’ outstanding principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest. The indemnification notice from JP Morgan Chase further alleged that the Company and SecurityNational Mortgage are required to indemnify EMC Mortgage for any of its losses arising from the lawsuit that the Trust brought against EMC based upon allegedly untrue statements of material fact related to information that was provided by SecurityNational Mortgage. To the extent the claims in the complaint relate to the 21 mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly sold to EMC Mortgage, the Company believes it has significant defenses to such claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and SecurityNational Mortgage in the event that JP Morgan Chase were to bring any legal action to require the Company or SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify it for any loss, liability or expense in connection with the lawsuit that the Trust brought against EMC Mortgage. Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation Lehman Brothers - Aurora Loan Services Litigation On April 15, 2005, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a loan purchase agreement with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman Bank”). Under the terms of the loan purchase agreement, Lehman Bank agreed to purchase mortgage loans from time to time from SecurityNational Mortgage. During 2007, Lehman Bank and its wholly owned subsidiary, Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora Loan Services”), purchased a total of 1,490 mortgage loans in the aggregate amount of $352,774,000 from SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank asserted that certain of the mortgage loans that it purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage during 2007 contained alleged misrepresentations and early payment defaults. As a result of these alleged issues with the mortgage loans, Lehman Bank contended it had the right to require SecurityNational Mortgage to repurchase certain loans or be liable for losses related to such loans under the loan purchase agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with these claims. On December 17, 2007, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into an Indemnification Agreement with Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. Under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage agreed to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 75% of all losses that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services may incur relative to breaches by mortgagors pertaining to 55 mortgage loans that were purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage was released from any obligation to pay the remaining 25% of such losses. The Indemnification Agreement also required SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 100% of any future losses incurred on mortgage loans with breaches that were not among the 55 mortgage loans. Pursuant to the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage paid $395,000 to Aurora Loan Services as a deposit into a reserve account, to secure any obligations of SecurityNational Mortgage under the Indemnification Agreement. This deposit was in addition to a $250,000 deposit that SecurityNational Mortgage previously made into the reserve account for a total of $645,000. Losses from mortgage loans with alleged breaches were payable from the reserve account. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services were not to apply any funds from the reserve account to a particular mortgage loan, however, until an actual loss had occurred. Under the Indemnification Agreement SecurityNational Mortgage was to pay to Aurora Loan Services each calendar month the difference between the reserve account balance and $645,000, but in no event would SecurityNational Mortgage be required to make payments into the reserve account in excess of $125,000 for any calendar month. Since the time the reserve account was established, SecurityNational Mortgage paid a total of $4,281,000 from the reserve account to indemnify Lehman Brothers Bank and Aurora Loan Services for alleged losses from 31 mortgage loans that were among 55 mortgage loans with alleged breaches that were covered by the Indemnification Agreement and ten other mortgage loans with alleged breaches. In the last monthly billing statement dated April 24, 2011 to SecurityNational Mortgage, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) claimed that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. During 2010 and 2011, the Company recognized alleged losses of $1,289,000 and $-0-, respectively. Management cannot fully determine the total losses, however, because there could be potential claims for losses that have not yet been determined. As of December 31, 2014, the Company had not accrued for any losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage was involved in discussions with Lehman Bank and Lehman Holdings concerning issues under the Indemnification Agreement. During the discussion period, monthly payments for December 2010 and January, February, March and April of 2011 totaling $625,000 were abated or deferred. On May 11, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a complaint against Aurora Bank FSB, formerly known as Lehman Bank, and Aurora Loan Services in the United States District Court for the District of Utah because it had been unable to resolve certain issues under the Indemnification Agreement with Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. The complaint alleges, among other claims, material breach of the Indemnification Agreement, including a claim that neither Lehman Bank nor Aurora Loan Services owned the mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage sold so as to justify the amount of payments demanded from, and made by, SecurityNational Mortgage. As a result, SecurityNational Mortgage claims it is entitled to judgment of approximately $4,000,000 against Lehman Bank, as well as Aurora Loan Services to the extent of its involvement and complicity with Lehman Bank. The complaint also alleges a second claim for material breach of a section of the Indemnification Agreement that contains an alleged “sunset” provision and that the amount of the requested payments made was not justified under the “sunset” provision. On June 8, 2011, Lehman Holdings, which had filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, filed a complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A subsidiary of Lehman Holdings owns Lehman Bank. The complaint alleges that SecurityNational Mortgage sold loans to Lehman Bank, which were then sold to Lehman Holdings. The complaint additionally alleges that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services assigned their rights and remedies under the loan purchase agreement, as well as the Indemnification Agreement, to Lehman Holdings, which latter assignment purportedly took place on March 28, 2011. Lehman Holdings declared in a letter dated June 2, 2011 that the Indemnification Agreement was null and void except as to losses previously released and discharged, which is disputed by SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Holdings’ alleged claims are for damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty pursuant to a loan purchase agreement and Seller’s Guide. Based on claiming that the Indemnification Agreement is null and void pursuant to its lawsuit, Lehman Holdings has initially claimed damages in excess of $5,000,000. Prior to declaring the Indemnification Agreement null and void, Lehman Holdings claimed in a then recent billing statement under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage strongly disagrees with the position of Lehman Holdings and, as set forth in its May 11, 2011 complaint, seeks affirmative relief of approximately $4,000,000 from Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. Lehman Bank is a subsidiary of a company owned by Lehman Holdings, and Aurora Loan Services is a subsidiary of Lehman Bank. On September 4, 2012, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion for summary judgment in its action against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services on certain material issues, as well as against Lehman Holdings regarding its claims against SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a cross motion for summary judgment as to the issues in SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion and, in the Lehman Holdings case, Lehman Holdings has requested that the Court allow a cross motion on the issues which are the subject of SecurityNational Mortgage’s September 4, 2012 motion. The cases are before two different federal judges. On February 27, 2013, SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services and the related cross motion were heard by Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. After an extensive hearing, Judge Nuffer requested that the parties prepare findings of fact in accordance with the Court’s earlier promulgated findings as modified at the hearing, and that each party submit proposed conclusions of law related to the motions. The motion and cross motion were taken under advisement. SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion in the Lehman Holdings case was heard on April 22, 2014 before Judge Ted Stewart of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and is under advisement. On May 6, 2014, Judge Nuffer issued his summary of facts, conclusions of law and order granting SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment and denying the cross motion of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. On May 27, 2014, Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a motion to reconsider Judge Nuffer’s summary judgment ruling. On June 2, 2014, a hearing was held before Judge Nuffer to determine the amount owing to SecurityNational Mortgage pursuant to the summary judgment ruling. On December 23, 2014, Judge Nuffer issued an order denying Lehman Bank’s and Aurora Loan Services’ motion for reconsideration of his summary judgment ruling in favor of SecurityNational Mortgage. On December 24, 2014, Judge Nuffer issued an amended order granting SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment. The amended order provided that the amount of monies previously paid by SecurityNational Mortgage that were wrongfully applied by Lehman Bank to losses on loans actually owed by Lehman Holdings, as established at the June 2, 2014 hearing, was $3,892,974. The amended order also provided for prejudgment interest at 9% per annum to SecurityNational Mortgage. The total amount of prejudgment interest awarded is $1,674,240 through May 31, 2014, with a per diem of $960 for each day after May 31, 2014 until judgment. The court also commented that further replenishment of the indemnification fund under the Indemnification Agreement appears to be barred by language in the assignment effecting a waiver, but that this issue had not been briefed before the June 2, 2014 hearing. In addition, the court stated that the offset that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services pled as an affirmative defense had not yet been adjudicated by the court. Finally, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer by January 16, 2015, and to file a motion to schedule the disposition of the remaining issues in the case. The motion is to clarify whether any issues other than the offset remain to be resolved. On May 7, 2014, Judge Stewart issued an order for the parties to submit supplemental briefs as to the effect of Judge Nuffer’s summary judgment order on SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment in the Lehman Holdings case. The supplemental briefing was continued until January 16, 2015. Judge Stewart also granted leave for SecurityNational Mortgage to file an additional motion for summary judgment in the Lehman Holdings case on the basis that the claims of Lehman Holdings are barred by the statute of limitations. The motion was also to be filed by January 16, 2015. The August 11, 2014 trial setting before Judge Stewart in the Lehman Holdings case was stricken without providing a new trial date. On January 16, 2015, SecurityNational Mortgage and Lehman Holdings filed briefs with Judge Stewart concerning the effect of the rulings in Judge Nuffer’s case on the case before Judge Stewart, and on the same date SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion for summary judgment in the Lehman Holdings case based on the statute of limitations. A hearing concerning SecurityNational Mortgage’s summary judgment motion based on the statute of limitations is scheduled before Judge Stuart on April 14, 2015. On February 28, 2015, Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a partial summary judgment motion before Judge Nuffer asserting that the Indemnification Agreement security fund should be replenished, and for a right to offset alleged losses of approximately $8.6 million, based on more than 100 loans retained by Lehman Bank, against the amount owing to SecurityNational per Judge Nuffer’s summary judgment order. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services asserts that another 124 loans are not analyzed yet for potential breaches. SecurityNational Mortgage had until March 30, 2015 to respond to the motion of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services, and to file a motion if so determined by SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage asserts that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services have no rights to a replenishment of the Indemnification Agreement reserve account, or for any offset against the liability of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services to SecurityNational Mortgage, including the assertion that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services executed an assignment to Lehman Holdings containing a waiver and release of rights and remedies which affect the foregoing asserted replenishment and offset matters. On March 30, 2015, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a response in opposition to the partial summary judgment motion of Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services and also filed its own partial summary judgment motion on the same issue against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operation. Non-Cancelable Leases The Company leases office space and equipment under various non-cancelable agreements, with remaining terms up to five years. Minimum lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2014, are approximately as follows:
Years Ending |
December 31 |
2015 | $ 4,299,185
2016 | 3,610,599
2017 | 2,835,947
2018 | 1,188,581
2019 | 563,956
Total | $ 12,498,268
Total rent expense related to non-cancelable operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012 was approximately $5,589,000, $4,307,000 and $3,425,000, respectively. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund new residential construction loans. As of December 31, 2014, the Company’s commitments were $49,307,000, for these loans of which $33,072,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees from the borrowers and the interest rate is generally 2% to 6.75% over the bank prime rate (3.25% as of December 31, 2014). Maturities range between six and twelve months. The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captive insurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date. At December 31, 2014, $929,417 of reserves was established related to such insurance programs versus $524,034 at December 31, 2013. The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

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

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration