Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Contingencies
Contingencies	NOTE 12 – CONTINGENCIES Litigation CIT is currently involved, and from time to time in the future may be involved, in a number of judicial, regulatory, and arbitration proceedings relating to matters that arise in connection with the conduct of its business (collectively, "Litigation"). In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of Litigation matters, particularly when such matters are in their early stages or where the claimants seek indeterminate damages, CIT cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the pending Litigation will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines, or penalties related to each pending matter may be. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, CIT establishes reserves for Litigation when those matters present loss contingencies as to which it is both probable that a loss will occur and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on currently available information, CIT believes that the results of Litigation that is currently pending, taken together, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, but may be material to the Company's operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending in part on its operating results for that period. The actual results of resolving such matters may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved. For certain Litigation matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the loss amount accrued. For other matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, such an estimate is not reasonably possible. For Litigation where losses are reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as up to $265 million in excess of established reserves. This estimate represents reasonably possible losses (in excess of established reserves and other amounts referenced above) over the life of such Litigation, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available as of June 30, 2011. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those Litigation matters for which an estimate is not reasonably possible or as to which a loss does not appear to be reasonably possible, based on current information, are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure. The foregoing statements about our litigation are based on the Company's judgments, assumptions, and estimates and are necessarily subjective and uncertain. Some of our pending litigation matters are described below. Securities Class Action In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "New York District Court") on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO. In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller and certain members of its current and former Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock. In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"). Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending business as described above. Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated securities action as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy. On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action continues as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to defend and indemnify such defendants continues. The case is in the discovery stage. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. Non-binding mediation is scheduled for August, 2011. Tyco Tax Agreement This matter, which was previously reported as a contractual contingency in our SEC filings, has now evolved into litigation. In connection with our separation from Tyco International Ltd ("Tyco") in 2002, CIT and Tyco entered into a Tax Agreement pursuant to which, among other things, CIT agreed to pay Tyco for tax savings actually realized by CIT, if any, as a result of the use of certain tax attributes resulting from net operating losses recognized while Tyco owned CIT (the "Tyco Tax Attribute"), which savings would not have been realized absent the existence of the Tyco Tax Attribute. During CIT's bankruptcy, CIT rejected the Tax Agreement, and Tyco and CIT entered into a Standstill Agreement pursuant to which (a) CIT agreed that it would defer bringing its subordination claim against Tyco and (b) Tyco agreed that it would defer bringing its damages claim against CIT while the parties exchanged information about CIT's tax position, including past usage and retention of the various attributes on its consolidated tax return. Notwithstanding the Standstill Agreement, Tyco filed a Notice of Arbitration during the 2011 second quarter, demanding arbitration of its alleged contractual damages resulting from rejection of the Tax Agreement. CIT filed a motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a stay of the arbitration, together with an adversary proceeding seeking to subordinate Tyco's interests under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which would result in Tyco being treated like equity holders under CIT's confirmed Plan of Reorganization and receiving no recovery in connection with the termination of the Tax Agreement. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to stay the arbitration pending the court's ruling on the subordination claims. The amount of the Federal Tyco Tax Attribute is approximately $794 million and the state Tyco Tax Attribute is approximately $180 million as of the separation date. CIT's approximate applicable federal and state tax rates are currently 35% and 6.5%, respectively. CIT has recorded a valuation allowance against a significant portion of its federal and state deferred tax assets, as the Company continues to conclude that it does not currently meet the criteria to recognize these assets. It is CIT's position that it has not received federal tax benefits from the Tyco Tax Attribute within the meaning of the Tax Agreement and that it is speculative as to when, if ever, any such benefits may be realized in the future. Le Nature's Inc. CIT was the lead lessor under a syndicated lease of equipment (the "Lease") to Le Nature's Inc., a beverage bottler, for a newly-constructed bottling facility in Phoenix, Arizona. In 2005, CIT and co-lessors funded $144.8 million of which approximately $45 million was funded by CIT. In 2006, CIT sold $5 million of its interest in the Lease. In November 2006, amid allegations that Le Nature's had perpetrated a fraudulent scheme, creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy against Le Nature's in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Upon the commencement of the bankruptcy, Le Nature's immediately ceased operations and a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed. Subsequent to the commencement of the Le Nature's bankruptcy, certain co-lessors and certain parties that participated in CIT's and other co-lessors's interests in the Lease filed lawsuits against CIT and others to recover the balance of their respective investments, asserting various claims including fraud, civil conspiracy, and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $84 million as well as claims for treble damages under RICO. All but one of these actions has been consolidated for discovery purposes in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2008, the Liquidating Trustee of Le Nature's commenced an action against, among others, Le Nature's lenders and lessors, including CIT, asserting a variety of claims on behalf of the liquidation trust. In October 2008, CIT commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, against the manufacturer of the equipment that was the subject of the Lease, certain of its principals, and the former CEO of Le Nature's, alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO and negligent misrepresentation, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2009, CIT commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, against the former independent auditing firm for Le Nature's, asserting professional negligence. In May 2009, one of Le Nature's other equipment lessors commenced an action against CIT, as well as the equipment manufacturer, and certain principals of the equipment manufacturer, in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, asserting claims for fraud and misrepresentation.

NOTE 12 – CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

CIT is currently involved, and from time to time in the future may be involved, in a number of judicial, regulatory, and arbitration proceedings relating to matters that arise in connection with the conduct of its business (collectively, "Litigation"). In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of Litigation matters, particularly when such matters are in their early stages or where the claimants seek indeterminate damages, CIT cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of the pending Litigation will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines, or penalties related to each pending matter may be. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, CIT establishes reserves for Litigation when those matters present loss contingencies as to which it is both probable that a loss will occur and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. Based on currently available information, CIT believes that the results of Litigation that is currently pending, taken together, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, but may be material to the Company's operating results or cash flows for any particular period, depending in part on its operating results for that period. The actual results of resolving such matters may be substantially higher than the amounts reserved.

For certain Litigation matters in which the Company is involved, the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the loss amount accrued. For other matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, such an estimate is not reasonably possible. For Litigation where losses are reasonably possible, management currently estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses as up to $265 million in excess of established reserves. This estimate represents reasonably possible losses (in excess of established reserves and other amounts referenced above) over the life of such Litigation, which may span a currently indeterminable number of years, and is based on information currently available as of June 30, 2011. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. Those Litigation matters for which an estimate is not reasonably possible or as to which a loss does not appear to be reasonably possible, based on current information, are not included within this estimated range and, therefore, this estimated range does not represent the Company's maximum loss exposure.

The foregoing statements about our litigation are based on the Company's judgments, assumptions, and estimates and are necessarily subjective and uncertain. Some of our pending litigation matters are described below.

Securities Class Action

In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "New York District Court") on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO. In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller and certain members of its current and former Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock.

In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act"). Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending business as described above.

Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated securities action as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy. On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action continues as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to defend and indemnify such defendants continues. The case is in the discovery stage. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. Non-binding mediation is scheduled for August, 2011.

Tyco Tax Agreement

This matter, which was previously reported as a contractual contingency in our SEC filings, has now evolved into litigation. In connection with our separation from Tyco International Ltd ("Tyco") in 2002, CIT and Tyco entered into a Tax Agreement pursuant to which, among other things, CIT agreed to pay Tyco for tax savings actually realized by CIT, if any, as a result of the use of certain tax attributes resulting from net operating losses recognized while Tyco owned CIT (the "Tyco Tax Attribute"), which savings would not have been realized absent the existence of the Tyco Tax Attribute. During CIT's bankruptcy, CIT rejected the Tax Agreement, and Tyco and CIT entered into a Standstill Agreement pursuant to which (a) CIT agreed that it would defer bringing its subordination claim against Tyco and (b) Tyco agreed that it would defer bringing its damages claim against CIT while the parties exchanged information about CIT's tax position, including past usage and retention of the various attributes on its consolidated tax return. Notwithstanding the Standstill Agreement, Tyco filed a Notice of Arbitration during the 2011 second quarter, demanding arbitration of its alleged contractual damages resulting from rejection of the Tax Agreement. CIT filed a motion in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a stay of the arbitration, together with an adversary proceeding seeking to subordinate Tyco's interests under section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which would result in Tyco being treated like equity holders under CIT's confirmed Plan of Reorganization and receiving no recovery in connection with the termination of the Tax Agreement. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to stay the arbitration pending the court's ruling on the subordination claims.

The amount of the Federal Tyco Tax Attribute is approximately $794 million and the state Tyco Tax Attribute is approximately $180 million as of the separation date. CIT's approximate applicable federal and state tax rates are currently 35% and 6.5%, respectively. CIT has recorded a valuation allowance against a significant portion of its federal and state deferred tax assets, as the Company continues to conclude that it does not currently meet the criteria to recognize these assets. It is CIT's position that it has not received federal tax benefits from the Tyco Tax Attribute within the meaning of the Tax Agreement and that it is speculative as to when, if ever, any such benefits may be realized in the future.

Le Nature's Inc.

CIT was the lead lessor under a syndicated lease of equipment (the "Lease") to Le Nature's Inc., a beverage bottler, for a newly-constructed bottling facility in Phoenix, Arizona. In 2005, CIT and co-lessors funded $144.8 million of which approximately $45 million was funded by CIT. In 2006, CIT sold $5 million of its interest in the Lease.

In November 2006, amid allegations that Le Nature's had perpetrated a fraudulent scheme, creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy against Le Nature's in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Upon the commencement of the bankruptcy, Le Nature's immediately ceased operations and a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed.

Subsequent to the commencement of the Le Nature's bankruptcy, certain co-lessors and certain parties that participated in CIT's and other co-lessors's interests in the Lease filed lawsuits against CIT and others to recover the balance of their respective investments, asserting various claims including fraud, civil conspiracy, and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $84 million as well as claims for treble damages under RICO. All but one of these actions has been consolidated for discovery purposes in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In October 2008, the Liquidating Trustee of Le Nature's commenced an action against, among others, Le Nature's lenders and lessors, including CIT, asserting a variety of claims on behalf of the liquidation trust.

In October 2008, CIT commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, against the manufacturer of the equipment that was the subject of the Lease, certain of its principals, and the former CEO of Le Nature's, alleging, among other things, fraud, conspiracy, civil RICO and negligent misrepresentation, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

In February 2009, CIT commenced a lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, against the former independent auditing firm for Le Nature's, asserting professional negligence.

In May 2009, one of Le Nature's other equipment lessors commenced an action against CIT, as well as the equipment manufacturer, and certain principals of the equipment manufacturer, in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, asserting claims for fraud and misrepresentation.