ABIOMED, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued) Note 12.
Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) On February 6, 2015, the U. S.  Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit, affirmed the dismissal by the U. S.  District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the District Court, of a previously disclosed complaint brought by alleged purchasers of the Company’s common stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired common stock of the Company between August 5, 2011 and October 31, 2012.
The complaint related to two previously reported complaints that were filed on November 16 and 19, 2012 and alleged that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to the Company’s marketing and labeling of the Impella 2.5 product and sought damages in an unspecified amount.
The District Court consolidated these complaints, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013.
On July 8, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action.
The Company does not expect any further activity related to this matter.
On April 25, 2014, the Company received a subpoena from the Boston regional office of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, Office of Inspector General requesting materials relevant to the Company’s reimbursement of expenses and remuneration to healthcare providers for a six month period from July 2012 through December 2012 in connection with a civil investigation under the False Claims Act (the “FCA Investigation” and, together with the Marketing and Labeling Investigation, the “DOJ Investigations”).
The Company submitted the requested documents to HHS and believes that it substantially complied with the subpoena.
On November 6, 2014, the Company received notice from the Department of Justice, United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts in the form of a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) requesting additional materials relating to this matter for the time period of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.
The Company is currently is the process of responding to the additional requests for information contained in the CID and intends to continue to cooperate with the U. S.  Attorney’s Office in connection with the FCA investigation.
The Company is unable to estimate a potential liability with respect to the DOJ Investigations.
There are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of these investigations and lawsuits, including that: the proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved and information obtained or rulings made during any lawsuits or investigations could affect the methodology for calculation.
In addition, with respect to claims for which damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified.
Therefore, the Company is unable at this time to estimate its possible losses and accordingly, no adjustment has been made to the financial statements to reflect the outcome of these uncertainties.
Note 13.
Accrued Expenses Accrued expenses consisted of the following:
## Table 0 ##
Accrued employee compensation consists primarily of accrued bonuses, accrued commissions and accrued employee benefits at March 31, 2015 and 2014.
Note 14.
Segment and Enterprise Wide Disclosures The Company operates in one business segment—the research, development and sale of medical devices to assist or replace the pumping function of the failing heart.
The Company’s chief operating decision maker (determined to be the Chief Executive Officer) does not manage any part of the Company separately, and the allocation of resources and assessment of performance are based on the Company’s consolidated operating results.
Approximately 77% and 74% of the Company’s total consolidated assets are located within the U. S.  as of March 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The remaining assets are mostly located in Europe and are primarily related to the Company’s Impella production
?
Level 2 – Consists of assets or liabilities valued using industry standard models and based on prices, other than quoted prices within Level 1, that are either directly or indirectly observable as of the measurement date.
The industry standard models consider observable assumptions including time value, volatility factors and current market and contractual prices for the underlying commodities, in addition to other economic measures.
This category includes contracts traded on active exchanges or in over-the-counter markets priced with industry standard models.  ?
Level 3 – Consists of assets or liabilities whose fair value is estimated based on internally developed models or methodologies using inputs that are generally less readily observable and supported by little, if any, market activity at the measurement date.
Unobservable inputs are developed based on the best available information and subject to cost benefit constraints.
This category includes contracts priced using models that are internally developed and contracts placed in illiquid markets.
It also includes contracts that expire after the period of time for which quoted prices are available and internal models are used to determine a significant portion of the value.
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 are summarized below
## Table 1 ##
(a) The Companies’ policy is to review the fair value hierarchy and recognize transfers into and transfers out of the levels at the end of each reporting period.
There were no transfers between levels 1, 2 and 3 for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015.
(b) Level 2 assets and liabilities include investments held in the deferred compensation plan and/or non-qualified retirement plans, interest rate swap, exchange-traded contracts where there is insufficient market liquidity to warrant inclusion in Level 1, certain over-the-counter derivative instruments for electricity, refined products and natural gas.
Derivative instruments classified as Level 2 are valued using industry standard models that incorporate corroborated observable inputs; such as pricing services or prices from similar instruments that trade in liquid markets, time value and volatility factors.
(c) The accounting rules for fair value measurements and disclosures require consideration of the impact of nonperformance risk (including credit risk) from a market participant perspective in the measurement of the fair value of assets and liabilities.
At December 31, 2016 and 2015, the Companies determined that nonperformance risk would have no material impact on their financial position or results of operations.
(d) Other assets are comprised of assets such as life insurance contracts within the deferred compensation plan and non-qualified retirement plans.
(e) Amounts represent the impact of legally-enforceable master netting agreements that allow the Companies to net gain and loss positions and cash collateral held or placed with the same counterparties.
(f) Amounts represent derivative assets and liabilities included in Assets and Liabilities held for sale on the consolidated balance sheet (see Note U).
(g) See Note O.
The employees in the Companies’ risk management group develop and maintain the Companies’ valuation policies and procedures for, and verify pricing and fair value valuation of, commodity derivatives.
Under the Companies’
Note 17 – Goodwill and other intangible assets Goodwill Goodwill is recorded upon completion of a business combination as the difference between the purchase price and the fair value of the net assets acquired.
Subsequent to initial recognition, goodwill is not amortized but is tested for impairment during the fourth quarter of each fiscal year, or more often if events or circumstances, such as adverse changes in the business climate, indicate there may be impairment.
The goodwill associated with each business combination is allocated to the related reporting units, which are determined based on how the Firm’s businesses are managed and how they are reviewed by the Firm’s Operating Committee.
The following table presents goodwill attributed to the business segments.
## Table 2 ##
(a) The remaining $101 million of Private Equity goodwill was disposed of as part of the Private Equity sale completed in January 2015.
For further information on the Private Equity sale, see Note 2.
The following table presents changes in the carrying amount of goodwill.
## Table 3 ##
(a) Includes foreign currency translation adjustments, other tax-related adjustments, and, during 2014, goodwill impairment associated with the Firm’s Private Equity business of $276 million.
Impairment testing During 2014, the Firm recognized impairments of the Private Equity business’ goodwill totaling $276 million.
The Firm’s remaining goodwill was not impaired at December 31, 2014.
Further, the Firm’s goodwill was not impaired at December 31, 2013 nor was any goodwill written off due to impairment during 2013 or 2012.
The goodwill impairment test is performed in two steps.
In the first step, the current fair value of each reporting unit is compared with its carrying value, including goodwill.
If the fair value is in excess of the carrying value (including goodwill), then the reporting unit’s goodwill is considered not to be impaired.
If the fair value is less than the carrying value (including goodwill), then a second step is performed.
In the second step, the implied current fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is determined by comparing the fair value of the reporting unit (as determined in step one) to the fair value of the net assets of the reporting unit, as if the reporting unit were being acquired in a business combination.
The resulting implied current fair value of goodwill is then compared with the carrying value of the reporting unit’s goodwill.
If the carrying value of the goodwill exceeds its implied current fair value, then an impairment charge is recognized for the excess.
If the carrying value of goodwill is less than its implied current fair value, then no goodwill impairment is recognized.
The Firm uses the reporting units’ allocated equity plus goodwill capital as a proxy for the carrying amounts of equity for the reporting units in the goodwill impairment testing.
Reporting unit equity is determined on a similar basis as the allocation of equity to the Firm’s lines of business, which takes into consideration the capital the business segment would require if it were operating independently, incorporating sufficient capital to address regulatory capital requirements (including Basel III), economic risk measures and capital levels for similarly rated peers.
Proposed line of business equity levels are incorporated into the Firm’s annual budget process, which is reviewed by the Firm’s Board of Directors.
Allocated equity is further reviewed on a periodic basis and updated as needed.
The primary method the Firm uses to estimate the fair value of its reporting units is the income approach.
The models project cash flows for the forecast period and use the perpetuity growth method to calculate terminal values.
These cash flows and terminal values are then discounted using an appropriate discount rate.
Projections of cash flows are based on the reporting units’ earnings forecasts, which include the estimated effects of regulatory and legislative changes (including, but not limited to the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)), and which are reviewed with the senior management of the Firm.
The discount rate used for each reporting unit represents an estimate of the cost of equity for that reporting unit and is determined considering the Firm’s overall estimated cost of equity (estimated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model), as adjusted for the risk characteristics specific to each reporting unit (for example, for higher levels of risk or uncertainty associated with the business or management’s forecasts and assumptions).
To assess the reasonableness of the discount rates used for each reporting unit management compares the discount rate to the estimated cost of equity for publicly traded institutions with similar businesses and risk characteristics.
In addition, the weighted average cost of equity (aggregating the various reporting units) is compared with the Firms’ overall estimated cost of equity to ensure reasonableness.
The valuations derived from the discounted cash flow models are then compared with market-based trading and transaction multiples for relevant competitors.
Trading and transaction comparables are used as general indicators to assess the general reasonableness of the estimated fair
pollutants discharged to waters of the United States and remediation of waters affected by such discharge.
To our knowledge, we are in compliance with all material requirements associated with the various regulations.
The United States Congress is actively considering legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane.
In addition, state and regional initiatives to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are underway.
We are monitoring federal and state legislation to assess the potential impact on our operations.
Our most recent calculation of direct greenhouse gas emissions for ONEOK and ONEOK Partners is estimated to be less than 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents on an annual basis.
We will continue efforts to quantify our direct greenhouse gas emissions and will report such emissions as required by any mandatory reporting rule, including the rules anticipated to be issued by the EPA in mid-2009.
Superfund - The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or Superfund, imposes liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original act, on certain classes of persons who contributed to the release of a hazardous substance into the environment.
These persons include the owner or operator of a facility where the release occurred and companies that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substances found at the facility.
Under CERCLA, these persons may be liable for the costs of cleaning up the hazardous substances released into the environment, damages to natural resources and the costs of certain health studies.
Chemical Site Security - The United States Department of Homeland Security (Homeland Security) released an interim rule in April 2007 that requires companies to provide reports on sites where certain chemicals, including many hydrocarbon products, are stored.
We completed the Homeland Security assessments and our facilities were subsequently assigned to one of four risk-based tiers ranging from high (Tier 1) to low (Tier 4) risk, or not tiered at all due to low risk.
A majority of our facilities were not tiered.
We are waiting for Homeland Security’s analysis to determine if any of the tiered facilities will require Site Security Plans and possible physical security enhancements.
Climate Change - Our environmental and climate change strategy focuses on taking steps to minimize the impact of our operations on the environment.
These strategies include: (i) developing and maintaining an accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory, according to rules anticipated to be issued by the EPA in mid-2009; (ii) improving the efficiency of our various pipelines, natural gas processing facilities and natural gas liquids fractionation facilities; (iii) following developing technologies for emission control; (iv) following developing technologies to capture carbon dioxide to keep it from reaching the atmosphere; and (v) analyzing options for future energy investment.
Currently, certain subsidiaries of ONEOK Partners participate in the Processing and Transmission sectors and LDCs in our Distribution segment participate in the Distribution sector of the EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program to voluntarily reduce methane emissions.
A subsidiary in our ONEOK Partners’ segment was honored in 2008 as the “Natural Gas STAR Gathering and Processing Partner of the Year” for its efforts to positively address environmental issues through voluntary implementation of emission-reduction opportunities.
In addition, we continue to focus on maintaining low rates of lost-andunaccounted-for methane gas through expanded implementation of best practices to limit the release of methane during pipeline and facility maintenance and operations.
Our most recent calculation of our annual lost-and-unaccounted-for natural gas, for all of our business operations, is less than 1 percent of total throughput.
EMPLOYEES  We employed 4,742 people at January 31, 2009, including 739 people employed by Kansas Gas Service, who were subject to collective bargaining contracts.
The following table sets forth our contracts with collective bargaining units at January 31, 2009.
## Table 4 ##

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> March 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2015</td><td> 2014</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> (in $000’s)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee compensation</td><td>$15,978</td><td>$11,967</td></tr><tr><td>Research and development</td><td>1,744</td><td>1,587</td></tr><tr><td>Sales and income taxes</td><td>1,506</td><td>1,445</td></tr><tr><td>Warranty</td><td>1,103</td><td>794</td></tr><tr><td>Professional, legal and accounting fees</td><td>710</td><td>1,304</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>853</td><td>802</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$21,894</td><td>$17,899</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">2016</td><td colspan="5">2015</td></tr><tr><td>(Millions of Dollars)</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>NettingAdjustment (e)</td><td>Total</td><td>Level 1</td><td>Level 2</td><td>Level 3</td><td>NettingAdjustment (e)</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>Con Edison</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Derivative assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodity (a)(b)(c)</td><td>$14</td><td>$33</td><td>$7</td><td>$-24</td><td>$30</td><td>$2</td><td>$25</td><td>$13</td><td>$7</td><td>$47</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity held for sale (f)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>63</td><td>1</td><td>-63</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Other (a)(b)(d)</td><td>222</td><td>111</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>333</td><td>185</td><td>112</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>297</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$236</td><td>$144</td><td>$7</td><td>$-24</td><td>$363</td><td>$187</td><td>$200</td><td>$14</td><td>$-56</td><td>$345</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative liabilities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodity (a)(b)(c)</td><td>$4</td><td>$144</td><td>$6</td><td>$-38</td><td>$116</td><td>$16</td><td>$153</td><td>$1</td><td>$-65</td><td>$105</td></tr><tr><td>Interest Rate Swap (a)(b)(c)(g)</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Commodity held for sale (f)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>1</td><td>133</td><td>7</td><td>-63</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Total liabilities</td><td>$4</td><td>$145</td><td>$6</td><td>$-38</td><td>$117</td><td>$17</td><td>$286</td><td>$8</td><td>$-128</td><td>$183</td></tr><tr><td>CECONY</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Derivative assets:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodity (a)(b)(c)</td><td>$10</td><td>$19</td><td>$1</td><td>$-10</td><td>$20</td><td>$1</td><td>$9</td><td>$8</td><td>$17</td><td>$35</td></tr><tr><td>Other (a)(b)(d)</td><td>200</td><td>106</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>306</td><td>171</td><td>105</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>276</td></tr><tr><td>Total assets</td><td>$210</td><td>$125</td><td>$1</td><td>$-10</td><td>$326</td><td>$172</td><td>$114</td><td>$8</td><td>$17</td><td>$311</td></tr><tr><td>Derivative liabilities:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Commodity (a)(b)(c)</td><td>$1</td><td>$124</td><td>$—</td><td>$-26</td><td>$99</td><td>$14</td><td>$129</td><td>$—</td><td>$-57</td><td>$86</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>December 31, (in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Consumer & Community Banking</td><td>$30,941</td><td>$30,985</td><td>$31,048</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate & Investment Bank</td><td>6,780</td><td>6,888</td><td>6,895</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Banking</td><td>2,861</td><td>2,862</td><td>2,863</td></tr><tr><td>Asset Management</td><td>6,964</td><td>6,969</td><td>6,992</td></tr><tr><td>Corporate<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>101</td><td>377</td><td>377</td></tr><tr><td>Total goodwill</td><td>$47,647</td><td>$48,081</td><td>$48,175</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Year ended December 31,(in millions)</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2012</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at beginning of period</td><td>$48,081</td><td>$48,175</td><td>$48,188</td></tr><tr><td>Changes during the period from:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Business combinations</td><td>43</td><td>64</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Dispositions</td><td>-80</td><td>-5</td><td>-4</td></tr><tr><td>Other<sup>(a)</sup></td><td>-397</td><td>-153</td><td>-52</td></tr><tr><td>Balance at December 31,</td><td>$47,647</td><td>$48,081</td><td>$48,175</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Union</td><td>Employees</td><td>Contract Expires</td></tr><tr><td>United Steelworkers of America</td><td>414</td><td>June 30, 2009</td></tr><tr><td>International Union of Operating Engineers</td><td>13</td><td>June 30, 2009</td></tr><tr><td>International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers</td><td>312</td><td>June 30, 2010</td></tr></table>

Question: as of january 31 , 2009 what percentage of employees were subject to collective bargaining contracts?