In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued FASB ASU No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs,” which is now codified under FASB ASC Topic 820, “Fair Value Measurement.”  This new guidance provides common requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRSs”).  Certain fair value measurement principles were clarified or amended in this ASU, such as the application of the highest and best use and valuation premise concepts.  New and revised disclosure requirements include: quantitative information about significant unobservable inputs used for all Level 3 fair value measurements and a description of the valuation processes in place, as well as a qualitative discussion about the sensitivity of recurring Level 3 fair value measurements; public companies will need to disclose any transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements on a gross basis, including the reason(s) for those transfers; a requirement regarding disclosure on the highest and best use of a nonfinancial asset; and a requirement that all fair value measurements be categorized in the fair value hierarchy with disclosure of that categorization.  FASB ASU No. 2011-04 was effective during the nine month period ended September 30, 2012. The adoption of this ASU did not have an impact on our condensed consolidated statements.

In September 2011, the FASB issued FASB ASU No. 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment,” which is now codified under FASB ASC Topic 350, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other.” This new guidance allows an entity to first assess qualitative factors to evaluate if the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination it is necessary to perform the current two-step test.  After assessing the totality of events or circumstances, if it is determined it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary.  Otherwise, the entity is required to perform Step 1 of the impairment test.  An entity has the option to bypass the qualitative assessment for any reporting unit in any period and proceed directly to Step 1 of the two-step impairment test, and then resume performing the qualitative assessment in any subsequent period.  Reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts continue to be required to perform a qualitative assessment in place of Step 1 of the impairment test. The new guidance includes examples of events and circumstances an entity should consider in its evaluation of whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, such as macroeconomic conditions; industry and market considerations; cost factors; overall financial performance; and other relevant entity-specific events.  The examples of events and circumstances included in this ASU supersede the previous examples entities should have considered. FASB ASU No. 2011-08 is effective for our annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed during the year ending December 31, 2012. We did not perform any impairment tests during the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 and will be considering the impact of this ASU on our condensed consolidated statements going forward.

In July 2012, the FASB issued ASU No. 2012-02, “Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment”. The revised standard is intended to reduce the cost and complexity of testing indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill for impairment. It allows companies to perform a "qualitative" assessment to determine whether further impairment testing of indefinite-lived intangible assets is necessary, similar in approach to the goodwill impairment test. The revised standard allows an entity the option to first assess qualitatively whether it is more likely than not (that is, a likelihood of more than 50 percent) that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired, thus necessitating that it perform the quantitative impairment test.1 An entity is not required to calculate the fair value of an indefinite-lived intangible asset and perform the quantitative impairment test unless the entity determines that it is more likely than not that the asset is impaired. An entity choosing to perform the qualitative assessment would need to identify and consider those events and circumstances that, individually or in the aggregate, most significantly affect an indefinite-lived intangible asset's fair value. The revised standard provides examples of events and circumstances that should be considered, including deterioration in the entity's operating environment, entity-specific events, such as a change in management, and overall financial performance, such as negative or declining cash flows. An entity also should consider any positive and mitigating events and circumstances, as well as whether there have been changes to the carrying amount of the indefinite-lived intangible asset. An entity can choose to perform the qualitative assessment on none, some, or all of its indefinite-lived intangible assets. Moreover, an entity can bypass the qualitative assessment and perform the quantitative impairment test for any indefinite-lived intangible in any period. The revised standard is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. However, an entity can choose to early adopt the revised guidance even if its annual test date is before the issuance of the revised standard, provided that the entity has not yet performed its 2012 annual impairment test or issued its financial statements. For example, a calendar year-end entity with a third quarter annual test date may apply the revised standard to its 2012 annual impairment test.