Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Rental Expense and Lease Obligations In December of 2003, we sold our 45% equity investment in Rock-McGraw, Inc., which owns our former headquarters building in New York City, and remained an anchor tenant in our former corporate headquarters building in New York City by concurrently leasing back space from the buyer through 2020. In December of 2013, we entered into an arrangement with the buyer to shorten the lease to December of 2015 in exchange for approximately $60 million which was recorded as a reduction to the unrecognized deferred gain from the sale. The remaining gain is being amortized over the remaining lease term as a reduction in rent expense. As of June 30, 2015 , the remaining deferred gain was $4 million , as $2 million and $4 million were amortized during the three and six months ended June 30, 2015 , respectively. Interest expense associated with this operating lease was less than $1 million for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2015 . Legal & Regulatory Matters In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company, its subsidiary Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P LLC”) and some of its other subsidiaries are defendants in numerous legal proceedings and are often the subject of government and regulatory proceedings, investigations and inquiries. Many of these proceedings, investigations and inquiries relate to the ratings activity of S&P Ratings brought by issuers and alleged purchasers of rated securities. In addition, various government and self-regulatory agencies frequently make inquiries and conduct investigations into our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to ratings activities and antitrust matters. Any of these proceedings, investigations or inquiries could ultimately result in adverse judgments, damages, fines, penalties or activity restrictions, which could adversely impact our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the pending claims and potential claims in the matters described below and is diligently pursuing these defenses, and in some cases working to reach an acceptable negotiated resolution. However, in view of the uncertainty inherent in litigation and government and regulatory enforcement matters, we cannot predict the eventual outcome of these matters or the timing of their resolution, or in most cases reasonably estimate what the eventual judgments, damages, fines, penalties or impact of activity restrictions may be. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that the outcome of the matters described below will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position. As litigation or the process to resolve pending matters progresses, as the case may be, we will continue to review the latest information available and assess our ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business and competitive position, which may require that we record liabilities in the consolidated financial statements in future periods. S&P Ratings Financial Crisis Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries continue to defend civil cases brought by private and public plaintiffs arising out of ratings activities prior to and during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Discovery in these cases is ongoing. We can provide no assurance that we will not be obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve these matters on terms deemed acceptable. At this time, however, we are unable to reasonably estimate the range of such amounts, if any. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission As a nationally recognized statistical rating organization registered with the SEC under Section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, S&P Ratings is in ongoing communication with the staff of the SEC regarding compliance with its extensive obligations under the federal securities laws. Although S&P Ratings seeks to promptly address any compliance issues that it detects or that the staff of the SEC raises, there can be no assurance that the SEC will not seek remedies against S&P Ratings for one or more material compliance deficiencies. Parmalat Litigation In September and October of 2005, writs of summons were served on The McGraw-Hill Companies, SRL and The McGraw-Hill Companies, SA in an action brought in the Tribunal of Milan, Italy by the Extraordinary Commissioner of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and Parmalat S.p.A. (collectively, “Parmalat”), claiming damages of €4.1 billion , representing the value of bonds issued by Parmalat which were rated investment grade by S&P Ratings, plus damages for S&P Ratings’ alleged complicity in aggravating Parmalat’s financial difficulties, among other claims. In June of 2011, the Court dismissed Parmalat’s main damages claim based on the value of the bonds, and ordered the defendants to pay Parmalat approximately €0.8 million , representing ratings fees paid by Parmalat, plus interest and expenses. In September of 2012, Parmalat appealed the judgment and, in November of 2012, requested payment of the judgment in the amount of €1.1 million , which was paid in December of 2012. In July of 2014, the Court of Appeals of Milan issued an order reopening the proceedings to allow the parties to submit additional pleadings. A hearing was held on February 25, 2015. Trani Prosecutorial Proceeding The prosecutor in the Italian city of Trani is seeking criminal indictments against several current and former S&P Ratings managers and ratings analysts for alleged market manipulation, and against Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe under Italy’s vicarious liability statute, for having allegedly failed to properly supervise the ratings analysts and prevent them from committing market manipulation. The prosecutor’s theories are based on various actions by S&P Ratings taken with respect to Italian sovereign debt between May of 2011 and January of 2012. In October of 2014, the court granted the prosecutor’s request and issued indictments against the current and former S&P Ratings managers and ratings analysts, as well as Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe. The trial commenced with a hearing on February 4, 2015, and the proceedings will continue on subsequent dates. Apart from criminal penalties that might be imposed following a conviction, under Italian law such conviction could also lead to civil damages claims against Standard & Poors Credit Market Services Europe. These claims cannot be quantified at this stage. Commodities & Commercial Markets Platts In May of 2013, representatives from the European Commission (DG Competition, the EC’s antitrust office) commenced an unannounced inspection of Platts’ London offices in conjunction with potential anticompetitive conduct (in particular, in the crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels markets) relating to Platts’ Market On Close price assessment process. No allegations have been made against Platts at this time. There have also been several civil actions filed in the United States relating to potential anticompetitive behavior by market participants relating to Platts’ price assessment process, none of which have named Platts as a defendant. McGraw Hill Construction In October of 2009, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which Reed Construction Data asserted a number of claims under various state and federal laws against the Company relating to alleged misappropriation and unfair competition by McGraw Hill Construction and seeking an unspecified amount of damages. In September of 2010, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss some of the claims. In September of 2014, the Court granted summary judgment to the Company on all of Reed’s remaining claims with the exception of the unfair competition claim. In October of 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to the Court agreeing to dismiss both Reed’s unfair competition claim and the Company’s counterclaims without prejudice to reinstatement in the event of a successful appeal of Reed’s dismissed claims. |