Commitments and Contingencies

Rental Expense and Lease Obligations

We are committed under lease arrangements covering property, computer systems and office equipment. Leasehold improvements are amortized on a straight-line basis over the shorter of their economic lives or their lease term. Certain lease arrangements contain escalation clauses covering increased costs for various defined real estate taxes and operating services and the associated fees are recognized on a straight-line basis over the minimum lease period.

Rental expense for property and equipment under all operating lease agreements is as follows:



(in millions)	Years ended December 31,
	2012			2011			2010
Gross rental expense	$	164		$	158		$	156
Less: sublease revenue	(4		)	(2		)	(2		)
Less: Rock-McGraw rent credit	(19		)	(18		)	(18		)
Net rental expense	$	141		$	138		$	136

In December 2003, we sold our 45% equity investment in Rock-McGraw, Inc., which owns our headquarters building in New York City, and remained an anchor tenant of what continues to be known as The McGraw-Hill Companies building by concurrently leasing back space through 2020. As of December 31, 2012, we leased approximately 17% of the building space. Proceeds from the disposition were $382 million and the sale resulted in a pre-tax gain, net of transaction costs, of $131 million ($58 million after-tax) upon disposition. As a result of the amount of building space we retained through our leaseback, a pre-tax gain of $212 million ($126 million after-tax) was deferred upon the disposition in 2003. This gain is being amortized over the remaining lease term as a reduction in rent expense, reducing the deferred gain to $123 million as of December 31, 2012. The amount of the gain amortized during the year ended December 31, 2012 was $13 million. Interest expense associated with this operating lease for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $6 million.

Cash amounts for future minimum rental commitments, including rent payments on the sale-leaseback, under existing non-cancelable leases with a remaining term of more than one year, along with minimum sublease rental income to be received under non-cancelable subleases are shown in the following table.



(in millions)	Rent commitment		Sublease income			Net rent
2013	$	166	$	(8	)	$	158
2014	151		(7		)	144
2015	138		(8		)	130
2016	127		(7		)	120
2017	117		(6		)	111
2018 and beyond	373		(14		)	359
Total	$	1,072	$	(50	)	$	1,022

Related Party Agreements

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 year ended December 31, 2012, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC earned $21 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 the net income attributable to noncontrolling interests.

Legal Matters

In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in numerous legal proceedings and are involved, from time to time, in governmental and self-regulatory agency proceedings which may result in adverse judgments, damages, fines or penalties. Also, various governmental and self-regulatory agencies regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

A writ of summons was served on The McGraw-Hill Companies, SRL and on The McGraw-Hill Companies, SA (both indirect subsidiaries of the Company) (collectively, “Standard & Poor's”) on September 29, 2005 and October 7, 2005, respectively, in an action brought in the Tribunal of Milan, Italy by Enrico Bondi (“Bondi”), the Extraordinary Commissioner of Parmalat Finanziaria S.p.A. and Parmalat S.p.A. (collectively, “Parmalat”). Bondi had brought numerous other lawsuits in both Italy and the United States against entities and individuals who had dealings with Parmalat. In this suit, Parmalat claims that Standard & Poor's, which had issued investment grade ratings on Parmalat until shortly before Parmalat's collapse in December 2003, breached its duty to issue an independent and professional rating and negligently and knowingly assigned inflated ratings in order to retain Parmalat's business. Alleging joint and several liability, Parmalat claims damages of euros 4,073,984,120 (representing the value of bonds issued by Parmalat and the rating fees paid by Parmalat) with interest, plus damages to be ascertained for Standard & Poor's alleged complicity in aggravating Parmalat's financial difficulties and/or for having contributed in bringing about Parmalat's indebtedness towards its bondholders, and legal fees. On June 29, 2011, the Court issued its final decision dismissing in its entirety Parmalat's main damages claim which was based on the value of the bonds issued. The Court ordered Standard & Poor's to pay Parmalat the sum of approximately euros 784,000 (approximately $1.1 million), representing the amount of rating fees paid to Standard & Poor's by Parmalat, plus interest from the date of service of the Writ of Summons. The Court also ordered Standard & Poor's to reimburse Parmalat for euros 47,390 (less than $0.1 million) in trial costs and for its share of fees paid to Court-appointed experts, amounting to euros 67,797 (also less than $0.1 million). On September 29, 2012, Parmalat submitted a brief to the Court of Appeals of Milan appealing the judgment issued by the Tribunal of Milan. An initial hearing on the appeal is scheduled to take place on May 29, 2013. Standard & Poor's response to the appeal, including a cross-appeal, if any, must be filed at least 20 days prior to the initial hearing.

In a separate proceeding, the prosecutor's office in Parma, Italy is conducting an investigation into the bankruptcy of Parmalat. In June 2006, the prosecutor's office issued a Note of Completion of an Investigation (“Note of Completion”) concerning allegations, based on Standard & Poor's investment grade ratings of Parmalat, that individual Standard & Poor's rating analysts conspired with Parmalat insiders and rating advisors to fraudulently or negligently cause the Parmalat bankruptcy. The Note of Completion was served on eight Standard & Poor's rating analysts. While not a formal charge, the Note of Completion indicates the prosecutor's intention that the named rating analysts should appear before a judge in Parma for a preliminary hearing, at which hearing the judge will determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the rating analysts to proceed to trial. No date has been set for the preliminary hearing. On July 7, 2006, a defense brief was filed with the Parma prosecutor's office on behalf of the rating analysts.

On October 8, 2009, an action was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Reed Construction Data, Inc. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. in which Reed Construction Data asserted eleven 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, plus attorneys' fees and costs. In response to the Company's motion to dismiss five of the eleven claims in the Reed action, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 10, 2009, among other things adding an allegation that McGraw-Hill Construction misappropriated Plaintiff's confidential and trade secret information regarding specific construction projects. The Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss five of the eleven claims in the Amended Complaint on January 22, 2010. On September 14, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss three of the five claims, including claims that alleged violations by the Company of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and conspiracy to violate RICO. On May 31, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to file a Second Amended Complaint that, among other things, added a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, including a demand for treble damages and attorneys' fees. The Second Amended Complaint also contains allegations purporting to further support Reed's existing tort and antitrust claims. On June 3, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to file a counterclaim against Reed alleging, among other things, that Reed misappropriated the Company's trade secrets and engaged in unfair competition as a result of Reed's recruitment of former employees of the Company and use of information about the Company's customers obtained from the former employees to solicit those customers. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery.

The Company and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, together with other credit rating agencies, have been named in numerous lawsuits in U.S. State and Federal Courts, as well as in foreign jurisdictions, relating to the ratings activity of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services brought by alleged purchasers and issuers of rated securities. The Company and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services have also received numerous subpoenas and other government inquiries concerning the rating activity of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services in these areas and continue to respond to all such requests. Additional actions, investigations or proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future.

In addition, the Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named in a putative class action brought under the federal securities laws by its shareholders and two putative class actions by participants in the Company's ERISA plans relating to alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's ratings business:

On August 28, 2007, a putative shareholder class action titled Reese v. Bahash was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and was subsequently transferred to the Southern District of New York. The Company and its CEO and former CFO were named as defendants in the suit, which alleged claims under the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the defendants relating to the Company's earnings and S&P's business practices. On November 3, 2008, the District Court denied Lead Plaintiff's motion to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in order to obtain documents S&P submitted to the SEC during the SEC's examination. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint which was fully briefed and submitted as of May 2009. The Court granted a motion by plaintiffs permitting the plaintiffs to amend the complaint on June 29, 2010 and the Third Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2010. Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint was fully briefed. On April 2, 2012, the District Court entered judgment granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissing all claims asserted against the Defendants in their entirety. The Lead Plaintiff appealed the dismissal order. On December 20, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in its entirety.

On September 10, 2008, a putative shareholder class action titled Patrick Gearren, et al. v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al. was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Board of Directors, its Pension Investment Committee and the administrator of its pension plans. The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to participants in the Company's ERISA plans by allowing participants to continue to invest in Company stock as an investment option under the plans during a period when plaintiffs allege the Company's stock price to have been artificially inflated. The Complaint also asserted that defendants breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by making certain material misrepresentations and non-disclosures concerning the ratings business in plan communications and the Company's SEC filings. A virtually identical complaint was filed on June 12, 2009 in an action titled Sullivan v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-CV-5450 in the Southern District of New York. On February 10, 2010 both actions were dismissed in their entirety for failure to state a claim under applicable law. Both plaintiffs appealed and on October 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals in their entirety. On February 23, 2012, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration by the full Court. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to review the decision. The Supreme Court has denied plaintiffs' request and the dismissals are now final.

On September 22, 2011 the Company received a “Wells Notice” from the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) stating that the staff is considering recommending that the Commission institute a civil injunctive action against Standard & Poor's Ratings Services alleging violations of federal securities laws with respect to S&P's ratings for a particular 2007 offering of collateralized debt obligations, known as “Delphinus CDO 2007-1”. The Wells Notice is neither a formal allegation nor a finding of wrongdoing. It allows its recipients the opportunity to provide their perspective and to address the issues raised by the staff before any decision is made by the Commission on whether to authorize the commencement of an enforcement proceeding against its recipients. S&P has responded to the staff presenting its position on the issues raised and why the Commission should not commence enforcement proceedings.

In connection with a previously disclosed investigation by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC ("S&P"), the DOJ filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 4, 2013 against the Company and S&P alleging violations of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 regarding S&P's ratings in 2004-2007 of certain U.S. collateralized debt obligations and S&P's rating models for certain structured finance products. S&P was notified of related state lawsuits.

The Company believes that the claims in the proceedings described above have no basis and they will be vigorously defended by the Company and/or the subsidiaries involved.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal matters, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the cases present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, we cannot state with confidence what the eventual outcome of these pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be or what the eventual loss, fines, penalties or impact related to each pending matter may be. We believe, based on our current knowledge, that the outcome of the legal actions, proceedings and investigations currently pending should not have a material, adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition.