Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Securities Class Action Lawsuit On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Company’s Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants. On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit On December 8, 2014, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the Chairman of the Board, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company is a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same set of defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, violated Florida Blue Sky laws and were unjustly enriched by (i) including materially false and misleading information in the prospectus and registration statements; and (ii) causing the Company to repurchase certain shares of its common stock from certain shareholders at an alleged artificially inflated price. The Company does not maintain any direct exposure to loss in connection with this shareholder derivative lawsuit as the lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. The Company’s status as a “Nominal Defendant” in the action reflects the fact that the lawsuit is maintained by the named plaintiff on behalf of the Company and that the plaintiff seeks damages on the Company’s behalf. On May 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of the Company’s securities class action lawsuit. On September 21, 2015, the Court granted the motion and ordered that the derivative action to be stayed in favor of the securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC). Consumer Class Action Lawsuits On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the “Hall Matter”). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld “experience” that includes an “orca experience” from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the “Kuhl Matter”), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the “Gaab Matter”), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the “Browne Matter”). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15: cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the “Simo Matter”). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA. The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The Court granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) on June 10, 2016. On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit. The Company’s response brief is currently due on November 18, 2016. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”). The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The First Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC. On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion was fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs’ petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments. The Company opposed the motion. On August 1, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part the Company’s motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed. The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserts causes of action based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Essentially plaintiffs allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases, plush toys while in the parks. The Company moved to dismiss this on various grounds. On November 7, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the Company’s motion to dismiss. The district court found the named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been dismissed. In addition, the district court determined that plaintiffs did not allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases, which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys. The district court also found that certain plaintiff’s conversation with SeaWorld’s trainers was not “advertising,” and dismissed the false advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it. What remains at this point are a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the purchase of tickets; a plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush toys; and a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the purchase of plush toys. The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. Other Matters The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). From time to time, various parties may also bring lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. At this time, management does not expect any known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company’s Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Børne- Og Ungdomspædagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Company’s Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld’s business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), which, among other things, no longer names the Company’s Board or underwriters as defendants. On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

On December 8, 2014, a putative derivative lawsuit captioned Kistenmacher v. Atchison, et al., Civil Action No. 10437, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against, among others, the Chairman of the Board, certain of the Company’s executive officers, directors and shareholders, and Blackstone. The Company is a “Nominal Defendant” in the lawsuit. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same set of defendants. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties, violated Florida Blue Sky laws and were unjustly enriched by (i) including materially false and misleading information in the prospectus and registration statements; and (ii) causing the Company to repurchase certain shares of its common stock from certain shareholders at an alleged artificially inflated price. The Company does not maintain any direct exposure to loss in connection with this shareholder derivative lawsuit as the lawsuit does not assert any claims against the Company. The Company’s status as a “Nominal Defendant” in the action reflects the fact that the lawsuit is maintained by the named plaintiff on behalf of the Company and that the plaintiff seeks damages on the Company’s behalf. On May 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of the Company’s securities class action lawsuit. On September 21, 2015, the Court granted the motion and ordered that the derivative action to be stayed in favor of the securities class action captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC).

Consumer Class Action Lawsuits

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the “Hall Matter”). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld “experience” that includes an “orca experience” from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the “Kuhl Matter”), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the “Gaab Matter”), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the “Browne Matter”). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15: cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the “Simo Matter”). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The Court granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the “Ninth Circuit”) on June 10, 2016. On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit. The Company’s response brief is currently due on November 18, 2016.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the “Anderson Matter”). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”). The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The First Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs’ definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC.

On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion was fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs’ petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments. The Company opposed the motion. On August 1, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part the Company’s motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed.

The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserts causes of action based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Essentially plaintiffs allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases, plush toys while in the parks. The Company moved to dismiss this on various grounds.

On November 7, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the Company’s motion to dismiss. The district court found the named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been dismissed. In addition, the district court determined that plaintiffs did not allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases, which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys. The district court also found that certain plaintiff’s conversation with SeaWorld’s trainers was not “advertising,” and dismissed the false advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it. What remains at this point are a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the purchase of tickets; a plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush toys; and a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the purchase of plush toys.

The Company believes that these consumer class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits.

Other Matters

The Company is a party to various other claims and legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business. In addition, from time to time the Company is subject to audits, inspections and investigations by, or receives requests for information from, various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA), the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). From time to time, various parties may also bring lawsuits against the Company. Matters where an unfavorable outcome to the Company is probable and which can be reasonably estimated are accrued. Such accruals, which are not material for any period presented, are based on information known about the matters, the Company’s estimate of the outcomes of such matters, and the Company’s experience in contesting, litigating and settling similar matters. Matters that are considered reasonably possible to result in a material loss are not accrued for, but an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is disclosed, if such amount or range can be determined. At this time, management does not expect any known claims, legal proceedings or regulatory matters to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.