XML 41 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Related Party Agreements In June of 2012, we entered into a new license agreement (the "License Agreement") with the holder of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC noncontrolling interest, CME Group, which replaced the 2005 license agreement between S&P DJ Indices and CME Group. Under the terms of the License Agreement, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC receives a share of the profits from the trading and clearing of CME Group's equity index products. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC earned $22 million of revenue under the terms of the License Agreement. The entire amount of this revenue is included in our consolidated statement of income and the portion related to the 27% noncontrolling interest is removed in net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. 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 additional 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 compliance deficiencies. Trani Prosecutorial Proceeding The prosecutor in the Italian city of Trani has obtained 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. Trial commenced in February of 2015 and is ongoing. Apart from criminal penalties that might be imposed following a conviction, such conviction could also lead to civil damages claims and other sanctions against Standard & Poor's Credit Market Services Europe or the Company. Such claims and sanctions cannot be quantified at this stage. Shareholder Derivative Actions In August of 2015, two purported shareholders commenced a putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled Retirement Plan for General Employees of the City of North Miami Beach and Robin Stein v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and mismanagement against the board of directors, certain former directors of the Company, and three former S&P Ratings employees. Plaintiffs seek recovery from the defendants based on allegations that S&P Ratings’ credit ratings practices for certain residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations misrepresented the credit risks of those securities, allegedly resulting in losses to the Company. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in October of 2015. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in December of 2015, and the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply on January 8, 2016. On January 28, 2016, a different purported shareholder commenced a separate putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled L.A. Grika v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to those in the North Miami Beach matter described above. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification against Harold McGraw III, Douglas L. Peterson, and nine former S&P Ratings employees. The case was transferred to the judge presiding over the North Miami Beach action. The Company intends to oppose the shareholder's attempt to pursue this lawsuit. On April 22, 2016, the court held a status conference for both the North Miami and Grika actions and set a briefing schedule for any motions to dismiss in the Grika action. The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral argument on the motions to dismiss in either the North Miami or the Grika actions. The City of Swan Australian government municipal councils filed suit against the Company and S&P International LLC in a representative action in April of 2013 in connection with alleged investment losses in eight synthetic collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) rated by S&P Ratings. These same CDOs were at issue in an earlier lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs against its investment advisor, Lehman Brothers Australia (“LBA”), in which the plaintiffs secured a judgment against LBA, which is now in liquidation. The plaintiffs claim total losses of AUD$327 million from these investments and are seeking recovery from both LBA and the Company. On February 19, 2016, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve the claims in this action. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to and made a payment of AUD$144 million. The federal court approved the settlement on April 12, 2016. Commodities & Commercial Markets McGraw Hill Construction Under the terms of an asset purchase agreement with Skyline HoldCo LLC (“Skyline”) related to Skyline’s purchase of the McGraw Hill Construction business from the Company in November of 2014, the Company agreed to retain liability with respect to the litigation captioned, Reed Construction Data Inc. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al., 09 Civ. 8578 (JPO), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and any action instituted at any time by the parties thereto arising from substantially the same set of facts and circumstances. Reed Construction Data filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October of 2009, asserting 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. On January 7, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=68068213&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=73718637&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration