Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Litigation The Company is subject to various lawsuits and other claims in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time, the Company receives communications from government or regulatory agencies concerning investigations or allegations of noncompliance with laws or regulations in jurisdictions in which the Company operates. The Company establishes reserves for the estimated losses on specific contingent liabilities, for regulatory and legal actions where the Company deems a loss to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In other instances, the Company is not able to make a reasonable estimate of liability because of the uncertainties related to the outcome or the amount or range of potential loss. The Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of pending regulatory and legal matters in future periods, including the matters described below will have a material adverse effect on its statements of comprehensive income (loss). On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain officers of SuperMedia (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries). The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of SuperMedia's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive. On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of SuperMedia's current officers (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries). The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of SuperMedia's bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009, inclusive. On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be consolidated with the cases filed in Texas. The complaints are virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition. Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been selected (the “Buettgen” case). On April 12, 2010, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint. On August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the court denied SuperMedia's motion to dismiss. On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a class. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied SuperMedia's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. On September 24, 2012, the SuperMedia defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal which was denied on February 20, 2013. The parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on April 1, 2013. The Court has approved the settlement and dismissed the defendants at the fairness hearing held on November 12, 2013. The Company's insurance carriers fully funded the settlement pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement. On April 20, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Tarrant County, Texas, against certain officers and directors of SuperMedia (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries) on behalf of Jack B. Corwin as Trustee of The Jack B. Corwin Revocable Trust, and Charitable Remainder Stewardship Company of Nevada, and as Trustee of the Jack B. Corwin 2006 Charitable Remainder Unitrust (the “Corwin” case). The Corwin case generally alleges that at various times in 2008 and 2009, the named SuperMedia officers and directors made false and misleading representations, or failed to state material facts, which made their statements misleading regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition. The suit brings fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act and Section 27 of the Texas Business Commerce Code. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and reimbursement for litigation expenses. On June 3, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the same allegations adding two additional SuperMedia directors as party defendants. On June 10, 2010, the court in the Buettgen case granted SuperMedia's motion staying discovery in the Corwin case pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. After plaintiffs replaced their counsel, the plaintiffs filed several amendments to the complaint. All the SuperMedia defendants refiled motions for summary judgment claiming that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing elicited during the discovery phase. The Company awaits the orders of the Court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf. On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee benefits committee (“EBC”) and pension plans of SuperMedia. All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from Verizon. The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (“ERISA”); that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee transfers. The SuperMedia defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion dismissing all the claims against the SuperMedia pension plans and all of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The only claims that remained against SuperMedia were procedural ERISA claims against SuperMedia's EBC. On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained class certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgments, denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment, and entered a take nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The briefing is ongoing and awaits the order of the court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf. On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of litigation against SuperMedia, formerly Idearc Inc. ("Idearc") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's EBC. The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010. On March 16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants filed another motion to dismiss the new complaint. On March 15, 2012, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed. On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Briefing on the petition is complete and we await the order of the court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf. On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action against SuperMedia, all its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The complaint alleges that SuperMedia improperly calculated the rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees. On July 29, 2011, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the individual defendants had “off-the-clock” claims for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion to dismiss in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice. On March 29, 2012, the court denied the SuperMedia's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class. SuperMedia's motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has been sent to SuperMedia's former and current employees. The time for opting into the class has expired. The plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the same allegations. On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division where SuperMedia seeks a declaratory judgment approving SuperMedia's right to enact several amendments that were made to its retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more generally SuperMedia's right to modify, amend or terminate these plans. Several of the defendants filed motions to dismiss as well as a counterclaim. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 8, 2013, the court granted several of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. SuperMedia settled this matter favorably after mediation. The court on January 10, 2014, preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered notice to the entire settlement class and set a fairness hearing for April 22, 2014. On March 29, 2013, a former unsecured note holder that was impacted by the bankruptcy of SuperMedia, formerly Idearc, in 2009, filed a notice and summons against Verizon Communications and the former chief financial officer ("CFO") of SuperMedia in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The filing alleges that Verizon improperly formed SuperMedia prior to the spin-off by not having the requisite number of directors under Delaware law. The plaintiff alleges that since SuperMedia was improperly formed, the former CFO did not have the authority to execute the note on behalf of SuperMedia and accordingly both Verizon and the former CFO are liable for the unpaid principal and interest when the notes were impacted by the bankruptcy. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligation and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendant's behalf.

Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is subject to various lawsuits and other claims in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time, the Company receives communications from government or regulatory agencies concerning investigations or allegations of noncompliance with laws or regulations in jurisdictions in which the Company operates.

The Company establishes reserves for the estimated losses on specific contingent liabilities, for regulatory and legal actions where the Company deems a loss to be probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In other instances, the Company is not able to make a reasonable estimate of liability because of the uncertainties related to the outcome or the amount or range of potential loss. The Company does not expect that the ultimate resolution of pending regulatory and legal matters in future periods, including the matters described below will have a material adverse effect on its statements of comprehensive income (loss).

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain officers of SuperMedia (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries). The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of SuperMedia's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive. On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of SuperMedia's current officers (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries). The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of SuperMedia's bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009, inclusive. On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be consolidated with the cases filed in Texas. The complaints are virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition. Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been selected (the “Buettgen” case). On April 12, 2010, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint. On August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the court denied SuperMedia's motion to dismiss. On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a class. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied SuperMedia's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. On September 24, 2012, the SuperMedia defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal which was denied on February 20, 2013. The parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on April 1, 2013. The Court has approved the settlement and dismissed the defendants at the fairness hearing held on November 12, 2013. The Company's insurance carriers fully funded the settlement pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement.

On April 20, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Tarrant County, Texas, against certain officers and directors of SuperMedia (but not against SuperMedia or its subsidiaries) on behalf of Jack B. Corwin as Trustee of The Jack B. Corwin Revocable Trust, and Charitable Remainder Stewardship Company of Nevada, and as Trustee of the Jack B. Corwin 2006 Charitable Remainder Unitrust (the “Corwin” case). The Corwin case generally alleges that at various times in 2008 and 2009, the named SuperMedia officers and directors made false and misleading representations, or failed to state material facts, which made their statements misleading regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition. The suit brings fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims and alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act and Section 27 of the Texas Business Commerce Code. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and reimbursement for litigation expenses. On June 3, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the same allegations adding two additional SuperMedia directors as party defendants. On June 10, 2010, the court in the Buettgen case granted SuperMedia's motion staying discovery in the Corwin case pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. After plaintiffs replaced their counsel, the plaintiffs filed several amendments to the complaint. All the SuperMedia defendants refiled motions for summary judgment claiming that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing elicited during the discovery phase. The Company awaits the orders of the Court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

On November 25, 2009, three retirees brought a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon and the employee benefits committee (“EBC”) and pension plans of SuperMedia. All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to SuperMedia pension plans at or near the SuperMedia's spin-off from Verizon. The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (“ERISA”); that both the Verizon and SuperMedia defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee transfers. The SuperMedia defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion dismissing all the claims against the SuperMedia pension plans and all of the claims against SuperMedia's EBC relating to the production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The only claims that remained against SuperMedia were procedural ERISA claims against SuperMedia's EBC. On November 1, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed its answer to the complaint. On November 4, 2010, SuperMedia's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs obtained class certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against SuperMedia's EBC. SuperMedia's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and filed a summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the court denied SuperMedia's EBC's motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgments, denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment, and entered a take nothing judgment in favor of the SuperMedia EBC. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The briefing is ongoing and awaits the order of the court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of litigation against SuperMedia, formerly Idearc Inc. ("Idearc") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of SuperMedia's current and former officers, directors and members of SuperMedia's EBC. The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding SuperMedia's financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010. On March 16, 2011, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint. SuperMedia's defendants filed another motion to dismiss the new complaint. On March 15, 2012, the court granted the SuperMedia defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed. On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Briefing on the petition is complete and we await the order of the court. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action against SuperMedia, all its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The complaint alleges that SuperMedia improperly calculated the rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees. On July 29, 2011, SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the individual defendants had “off-the-clock” claims for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, SuperMedia amended its motion to dismiss in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice. On March 29, 2012, the court denied the SuperMedia's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class. SuperMedia's motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has been sent to SuperMedia's former and current employees. The time for opting into the class has expired. The plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the same allegations.

On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division where SuperMedia seeks a declaratory judgment approving SuperMedia's right to enact several amendments that were made to its retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more generally SuperMedia's right to modify, amend or terminate these plans. Several of the defendants filed motions to dismiss as well as a counterclaim. SuperMedia filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 8, 2013, the court granted several of the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim. SuperMedia settled this matter favorably after mediation. The court on January 10, 2014, preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered notice to the entire settlement class and set a fairness hearing for April 22, 2014.

On March 29, 2013, a former unsecured note holder that was impacted by the bankruptcy of SuperMedia, formerly Idearc, in 2009, filed a notice and summons against Verizon Communications and the former chief financial officer ("CFO") of SuperMedia in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The filing alleges that Verizon improperly formed SuperMedia prior to the spin-off by not having the requisite number of directors under Delaware law. The plaintiff alleges that since SuperMedia was improperly formed, the former CFO did not have the authority to execute the note on behalf of SuperMedia and accordingly both Verizon and the former CFO are liable for the unpaid principal and interest when the notes were impacted by the bankruptcy. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligation and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendant's behalf.