2.2.0.7 false COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 10701 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES true false false false 1 USD false false Unit12 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 Unit13 Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 Unit1 Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 5 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 3 us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false terselabel false 1 false false false false 0 0 <div> <div> 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, NCR is subject to various regulations, proceedings, lawsuits, claims and other matters, including actions under laws and regulations related to the environment and health and safety, among others. NCR believes the amounts provided in its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, as prescribed by GAAP, are adequate in light of the probable and estimable liabilities. Other than as stated below the Company does not currently expect to incur material capital expenditures related to compliance with such laws and regulations. However, there can be no assurances that the actual amounts required to satisfy alleged liabilities from various lawsuits, claims, legal proceedings and other matters, including the Fox River environmental matter and other matters discussed below, and to comply with applicable laws and regulations, will not exceed the amounts reflected in NCR's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements or will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, capital expenditures, competitive position, financial condition or cash flows. Any costs that may be incurred in excess of those amounts provided as of June 30, 2010 cannot currently be reasonably determined. The United States Department of Justice is conducting an investigation regarding the propriety of the Company's former Teradata Data Warehousing business's arrangements and understandings with others in connection with certain federal contracts. In connection with the spin-off of Teradata on September 30, 2007, the responsibility for this matter, together with the related reserve, was distributed to Teradata Corporation. While the Company may be subject to ostensible exposure inasmuch as it was the contracting party in the matter at issue, Teradata Corporation is generally obligated to indemnify the Company for any losses arising out of this matter. A separate portion of the government's investigation relates to the adequacy of pricing disclosures made to the government in connection with negotiation of the Company's General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule and to whether certain subsequent price reductions were properly passed on to the government. Both Teradata Corporation and the Company are participating in this aspect of the investigation, with respect to certain products and services of each and each will assume financial responsibility for its own exposures, if any, without indemnification from the other. At this time, the Company is unable to determine whether it has probable liability with respect to this aspect of the investigation. In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for summary judgment against NCR in two companion class actions brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who claimed that the Company's 2003 decision to terminate certain benefits payable on death violated collective bargaining agreements and other rights. The Company has appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. If affirmed on appeal, the decision will require the Company to restore the death benefit, at an approximate cost of $6 million, which NCR recognized as other expense during the third quarter of 2009. Environmental Matters NCR's facilities and operations are subject to a wide range of environmental protection laws, and NCR has investigatory and remedial activities underway at a number of facilities that it currently owns or operates, or formerly owned or operated, to comply, or to determine compliance, with such laws. Also, NCR has been identified, either by a government agency or by a private party seeking contribution to site clean-up costs, as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a number of sites pursuant to various state and federal laws, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and comparable state statutes. Other than the matter detailed below, we currently do not anticipate material expenses and liabilities from these other environmental matters. NCR is one of eight entities that have been formally notified by governmental and other entities (such as local Native American tribes) that they are PRPs for environmental claims under CERCLA and other statutes arising out of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments in the lower Fox River and in the Bay of Green Bay in Wisconsin. NCR was identified as a PRP because of alleged PCB discharges from two carbonless copy paper manufacturing facilities it previously owned, which were located along the Fox River. Some parties contend that NCR is also responsible for PCB discharges from paper mills owned by other companies because carbonless paper manufactured by NCR was allegedly purchased by those mills as a raw material for their paper making processes. NCR sold the facilities in 1978 to Appleton Papers Inc. (API), which has also been identified as a PRP. The other Fox River PRPs that received notices are P.H. Glatfelter Company, Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (GP, successor to Fort James Operating Company), WTM I Co. (formerly Wisconsin Tissue Mills, now owned by Chesapeake Corporation), CBC Corporation (formerly Riverside Paper Corporation), U.S. Paper Mills Corp. (owned by Sonoco Products Company), and Menasha Corporation. During the past several years, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (together, the Governments) assessed and developed clean-up plans for the upper and lower parts of the Fox River and for portions of the Bay of Green Bay, contained in various Records of Decisions (RODs) issued in January 2003, July 2003 and June 2007 (the last is referred to as the Amended ROD). In general, the clean-up plan or remedy calls for a combination of dredging and capping to remediate the sediments in the river, and for monitored natural attenuation in the Bay of Green Bay. Since 2004, the Company has been involved in certain aspects of the clean-up project, including performance, with GP, of engineering design work for the clean-up under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) entered into with the Governments. In addition, the Company, with U.S. Paper Mills, performed specific remedial action involving an area of elevated PCB incidence downriver of the De Pere Dam (Phase 1 work), pursuant to a consent decree with the Governments that was approved in November 2006.   On November 13, 2007, the Governments issued a unilateral administrative order (Order) under Section 106 of CERCLA to all eight of the PRPs identified above. The Order requires the PRPs to implement the remedial work in the lower river in accordance with the requirements of the Amended ROD. NCR and API are working with the Governments to implement certain provisions of the Order. In-water work began on schedule in April 2009, following construction of a facility to house the remediation operations in Green Bay, Wisconsin. In April 2009, the NCR Board of Directors approved the terms of a contract with Tetra Tech, an environmental remediation contractor, to perform the remediation work at the Fox River consistent with the requirements of the Amended ROD. Prior to this, Tetra Tech had performed certain preparatory work pursuant to an interim contract with API. Also in April 2009, the Board of Directors approved the formation of a limited liability company (LLC), which NCR and API formed on April 27, 2009, for purposes of, among other things, entering into the Tetra Tech remediation contract. Other PRPs may join the LLC in the future, if and as they enter into settlements or otherwise agree to join in funding the remediation efforts. The LLC entered into the remediation contract with Tetra Tech on April 27, 2009, and in-water dredging and remediation by Tetra Tech commenced thereafter. The Company and API fund the LLC's operations on a regular basis tied to the remediation schedule, consistent with the Company's Fox River reserve, discussed below. The Tetra Tech contract also requires that the LLC members provide promissory notes to provide Tetra Tech financial assurance against the prospect that the LLC will terminate the contract before completion of the remediation for reasons other than "cause." The maximum obligation under the Company's note, formerly $20 million, is now approximately $17 million; however, the amount will vary based on a formula tied to conditions set forth in the contract, and generally is expected to decrease over time. NCR and API share their portion of the cost of the Fox River clean-up and natural resource damages based upon an agreement and an arbitration award, which result in a 45% share for NCR of the first $75 million of such costs—a threshold that was reached in 2008—and a 40% share for amounts in excess of $75 million. In 2008, NCR and API filed a lawsuit in federal court in Green Bay, Wisconsin, seeking a judicial ruling determining each PRP's allocable responsibility for the cost of performing the remedial work at the Fox River (the "allocation litigation"). As of June 30, 2010, there were a total of 28 defendants in that case and a companion consolidated case. A number of counterclaims seeking contribution under CERCLA and under various state law theories have been filed and are pending against NCR and API. On September 23, 2008, the court issued a Case Management Decision and Scheduling Order setting a "Phase I trial" limited to the questions of (i) when each party knew or should have known that recycling NCR-brand carbonless copy paper would result in the discharge of PCBs to a waterbody, thereby risking environmental damage; and (ii) what, if any, actions each party took upon acquiring such knowledge to avoid the risk of further PCB contamination. The court's order also limited initial discovery proceedings to the same questions. On December 16, 2009, the court issued a ruling cancelling the Phase I trial and granting motions for summary judgment filed by certain of the defendants against NCR and API. The court held that NCR and API could not recover from these defendants any costs that NCR and API have incurred in the Fox River cleanup (the ruling does not affect the governments' potential claims against such parties). The court based this ruling on a finding that NCR should have known, in the late 1960s, that the use of PCBs in carbonless copy paper presented an "appreciable risk of serious and long-lasting damage," whereas, it concluded, defendants did not know of PCB risks until after the majority of PCBs were released to the river. The court's ruling was also based on a finding that because NCR chose to use and introduce PCBs into the stream of commerce, it should bear the financial consequences of that decision. The Company intends to appeal the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In light of a subsequent February 2010 order by the district court denying a request to initiate an immediate appeal, the Company does not expect to be able to prosecute its appeal until the remaining claims in the litigation, including counterclaims brought by the defendants against NCR and API for reimbursement of previously incurred expenses and other matters, are resolved. The Company expects to be able to commence its appeal in 2010 or 2011, depending on whether the counterclaims in the case proceed to trial. The extent of NCR's potential liability remains subject to many uncertainties. NCR's eventual remediation liability—which is expected to be paid out over a period extending through at least approximately 2019, followed by long-term monitoring for several decades—will depend on a number of factors. In general, the most significant factors include: (1) the total clean-up costs for each of the segments of the river; (2) the total natural resource damages for the site; (3) the shares NCR and API will jointly bear of future clean-up costs and natural resource damages; (4) the share NCR will bear of the joint NCR/API payments for such clean-up costs and natural resource damages; and (5) NCR's transaction and litigation costs to defend itself in this matter, including participation in the allocation litigation. In establishing the reserve, NCR attempts to estimate a range of reasonably possible outcomes for each of these factors, although each range is itself highly uncertain. NCR uses its best estimate within the range, if that is possible. Where there is a range of equally possible outcomes, and there is no amount within that range that is considered to be a better estimate than any other amount, NCR uses the low end of the range. These factors are discussed below: For the first factor described above, NCR utilizes a best estimate of $933 million as the total of the clean-up costs for each of the segments of the river. The estimated total cost amount of $933 million includes estimates for the Operable Unit (OU) 1 through OU 5 work, including the remaining amount of work to be performed under the April 2009 Tetra Tech remediation contract, the Phase 1 work and the remedial design work. It adds to these estimates a 15% contingency for probable cost overruns based on historical experience; an estimate for the Governments' future oversight costs; an amount for the Governments' past oversight costs; an estimate for long-term monitoring extending over several decades; and an estimate for value engineering savings (potential projects intended to reduce the cost of the remediation). There can be no assurances that this estimated total cost amount will not be significantly higher as remediation work progresses. A range of reasonably possible outcomes with respect to total cost is difficult to state, but if the portion of the cost estimate relating to the contingency for cost overruns and unexpected expenses were twice our estimate, the total cost would increase to approximately $998 million. Second, for total natural resource damages (NRD), NCR uses a best estimate of $76 million. NCR believes the range of reasonably possible outcomes for NRD, if it were to be litigated, is between zero and $246 million. The federal government has indicated, in a 2009 filing in a PRP's bankruptcy proceeding, that claims for NRD could be as high as $382 million. Third, for the NCR/API shares of future clean-up costs, which are expected to be determined in the allocation litigation referenced above, NCR has modified the basis previously used for this component of the reserve (in the past, the company used the low end of a range of outcomes, based primarily on the proximity of areas to be remediated to the locations at which PCBs were released into the river). In light of the Wisconsin federal court's December 16, 2009 ruling described above, NCR's reserve at December 31, 2009 and June 30, 2010 assumed that NCR and API will be responsible for the full extent of the cleanup activities they are undertaking, which the Company considers a best estimate, and for a substantial portion of the counterclaims filed against NCR and API, as to which the Company uses the low end of a range of equally possible outcomes. At this point the Company is unable to determine whether the defendants will pay portions of the Fox River liability, and if so in what amount; the Governments have indicated their intention to continue pressing claims and settlement demands against the defendants, but NCR's reserve does not assume any such payments or settlements. Similarly, although NCR and API will appeal the December 2009 ruling, the reserve does not assume a particular outcome for the appeal. As for the NCR/API share of NRD, which is discussed above, NCR uses a best estimate. Fourth, for the NCR share of the joint NCR/API payments, as discussed above, NCR's percentage share is set by an agreement between NCR and API and a subsequent arbitration award. NCR's analysis of this factor assumes that API is able to pay its percentage share of the NCR/API joint share. Additionally, the API obligation to NCR is shared on a joint and several basis by a third party, B.A.T. Industries p.l.c., which is a co-party to the same agreement and arbitration award, and this analysis likewise assumes that B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. would be financially viable and able to pay the joint and several obligation if API is unable to do so. API itself is indemnified by another company, Arjo Wiggins Appleton Ltd., which has funded and managed API's liability to date. Finally, NCR estimated the transaction costs it is likely to incur to defend this matter through 2019, the time period NCR's engineering consultants believe it will take to implement the remedy for the river. This estimate is based on an analysis of NCR's costs since this matter first arose in 1995 and estimates of what NCR's defense and transaction costs will be in the future. NCR expects that the bulk of these transaction costs have been and will be incurred in the 2008—2012 time period. The costs incurred and expected to be incurred during that period include, in particular, transaction costs and fees related to completion of the design work, equipment purchases, commencement and continuation of clean-up activities in the river, and prosecution of the allocation litigation discussed above. In light of several factors—among them, the remedial design work conducted by NCR and GP, settlement possibilities (including both group and individual settlements for some entities), the efforts to implement the Order for clean-up of the lower river, the pending allocation litigation and appeal referenced above, the extent to which the Governments may press claims against the defendants for NRD, past costs and remediation liability, change orders or cost overruns that may result from the ongoing remediation efforts, the continued viability and willingness to pay of NCR's various indemnitors and co-obligors, and the subsequent value engineering efforts designed to make the cleanup more efficient and less costly—calculation of the Company's Fox River reserve has become subject to added layers of complexities, and it is possible there could be additional changes to some elements of the reserve over upcoming periods, although we are unable to predict or estimate such changes at this time. There can be no assurance that the clean-up and related expenditures will not have a material effect on NCR's capital expenditures, earnings, financial condition, cash flows, or competitive position. In addition, the current economic recession may have impacts on the Fox River clean-up, in particular with respect to the ability of PRPs to meet their obligations that may be placed upon them with respect to the cleanup or to remain as viable concerns; one of the original eight PRPs, WTM I Company, filed for bankruptcy on December 29, 2008, but the impact, if any, of that filing on that PRP's potential contributions to the clean-up cannot be determined at this time. As of June 30, 2010, the net reserve for the Fox River matter was approximately $208 million, compared to $202 million as of December 31, 2009. This increase in the reserve is due to a decrease in the indemnification asset discussed below offset by payments for clean-up activities and legal fees during the first six months of 2010. NCR regularly re-evaluates the assumptions used in determining the appropriate reserve for the Fox River matter as additional information becomes available and, when warranted, makes appropriate adjustments. NCR contributes to the LLC in order to fund remediation activities and generally, by contract, funds three months' worth of remediation activities in advance. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, approximately $13 million and $3 million, respectively, remained from this funding and was recorded in other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. NCR's reserve for the Fox River matter is reduced as the LLC makes payments to Tetra Tech and other vendors with respect to remediation activities. AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent are responsible severally (not jointly) for indemnifying NCR for certain portions of the amounts paid by NCR for the Fox River matter over a defined threshold. NCR's estimate of what AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent will pay under the indemnity is recorded as a long-term asset of approximately $102 million as of June 30, 2010 and $120 million as of December 31, 2009, and is deducted in determining the net reserve discussed above. The asset balance can fluctuate not only with respect to total clean-up and other costs, but also with respect to insurance recoveries and certain tax impacts as measured by a contractual formula using prior-year effective tax rates. Such insurance recoveries and tax impacts are netted against the asset in proportions specified under the indemnity agreement (i.e., they typically decrease its amount). Insurance recoveries, whether by judgment or settlement, are the subjects of ongoing litigation and thus difficult to predict. NCR's insurance recoveries have the effect of reducing its receipts under the indemnity, and therefore insurance recoveries are not expected to materially reduce the Company's aggregate expenditures for the Fox River matter. The tax impact within the indemnity calculation is subject to substantial volatility regarding the Company's effective tax rate from year to year, rendering the future tax impacts highly uncertain. When actual payments, net of insurance recoveries and tax impacts, reach the indemnity threshold, the Company expects to commence collection of the related portions of the asset. The Company currently does not expect to achieve the threshold before 2011. In connection with the Fox River matter, through June 30, 2010, NCR has received a combined total of approximately $100 million in connection with settlements reached with its principal insurance carriers over the past several years. Of the total amount collected to date, $9 million is subject to competing claims by another party, and NCR and the other party have agreed that these funds will be used for Fox River costs and will be shared on an agreed-upon basis (subject to reallocation at a later date). NCR's agreed-upon share of the $9 million is estimated to be $4 million. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, NCR reached settlements with several insurers which resulted in income of $17 million, or $11 million after tax included in Income from discontinued operations in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, NCR reached settlements with several insurers which resulted in income of $4 million, or $3 million after tax and $8 million, or $6 million after tax, respectively, included in Income from discontinued operations in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. The trial in the insurance case, previously scheduled for August 2010, will not occur; most of the carriers who were defendants in the case have now settled the claims against them, and those remaining in the case have entered into certain stipulations which obviate the need for a trial and will cause judgment to be entered against them; they will shortly commence an appeal. It is difficult to estimate the future financial impact of environmental laws, including potential liabilities. NCR records environmental provisions when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount or range of the liability is reasonably estimable. Provisions for estimated losses from environmental restoration and remediation are, depending on the site, based primarily on internal and third-party environmental studies (except for the Fox River site, where the estimated costs and natural resource damages are estimated as described above), estimates as to the number and participation level of any other PRPs, the extent of the contamination, and the nature of required clean-up and restoration actions. Reserves are adjusted as further information develops or circumstances change. Management expects that the amounts reserved from time to time will be paid out over the period of investigation, negotiation, remediation and restoration for the applicable sites. The amounts provided for environmental matters in NCR's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are the estimated gross undiscounted amounts of such liabilities, without deductions for insurance, third-party indemnity claims or recoveries from the other PRPs, except as qualified in the following sentences. Except for the sharing agreement with API described above with respect to the Fox River site, in those cases where insurance carriers or third-party indemnitors have agreed to pay any amounts and management believes that collectibility of such amounts is probable, the amounts are recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. For the Fox River site, as described above, an asset relating to the AT&T and Alcatel-Lucent indemnity is recorded because payment is considered probable and is supported by contractual agreements. Guarantees and Product Warranties Guarantees associated with NCR's business activities are reviewed for appropriateness and impact to the Company's financial statements. As of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, NCR had no obligations related to such guarantees, and therefore its financial statements do not have any associated liability balance.   NCR provides its customers a standard manufacturer's warranty and records, at the time of the sale, a corresponding estimated liability for potential warranty costs. Estimated future obligations due to warranty claims are based upon historical factors, such as labor rates, average repair time, travel time, number of service calls per machine and cost of replacement parts. When a sale is consummated, the total customer revenue is recognized and the associated warranty liability is recorded using pre-established warranty percentages for the respective product classes. From time to time, product design or quality corrections are accomplished through modification programs. When identified, associated costs of labor and parts for such programs are estimated and accrued as part of the warranty reserve. The Company recorded the activity related to the warranty reserve for the six months ended June 30 as follows:   <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="76%"> <tr><td width="86%"> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="5%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom" width="5%"> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="bottom">In millions</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2010</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-bottom: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom" colspan="2" align="center">2009</td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Warranty reserve liability</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Beginning balance as of January 1</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">25</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">24</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Accruals for warranties issued</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">21</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">20</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> Settlements (in cash or in kind)</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">(24</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">) </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">(25</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">) </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 1px solid;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="top"> Ending balance as of June 30</td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">22</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">$</td> <td valign="bottom" align="right">19</td> <td valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap">  </td></tr> <tr style="font-size: 1px;"><td valign="bottom"> </td> <td valign="bottom">  </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td> <td valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td style="border-top: #000000 3px double;" valign="bottom"> </td> <td> </td></tr></table> In addition, NCR provides its customers with certain indemnification rights. In general, NCR agrees to indemnify the customer if a third party asserts patent or other infringement on the part of the customer for its use of the Company's products. From time to time, NCR also enters into agreements in connection with its acquisition and divestiture activities that include indemnification obligations by the Company. The fair value of these indemnification obligations is not readily determinable due to the conditional nature of the Company's potential obligations and the specific facts and circumstances involved with each particular agreement. The Company has not recorded a liability in connection with these indemnifications. Historically, payments made by the Company under these types of agreements have not had a material effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. </div> </div> 7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, NCR is subject to various regulations, proceedings, lawsuits, claims and other matters, false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Includes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 false 1 1 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true