CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 14. CONTINGENCIES From time to time, Moody’s is involved in legal and tax proceedings, governmental investigations, claims and litigation that are incidental to the Company’s business, including claims based on ratings assigned by MIS. Moody’s is also subject to ongoing tax audits in the normal course of business. Management periodically assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with these matters based upon the latest information available. Moody’s discloses material pending legal proceedings pursuant to SEC rules and other pending matters as it may determine to be appropriate. Following the events in the U.S. subprime residential mortgage sector and the credit markets more broadly over the last several years, MIS and other credit rating agencies are the subject of intense scrutiny, increased regulation, ongoing investigation, and civil litigation. Legislative, regulatory and enforcement entities around the world are considering additional legislation, regulation and enforcement actions, including with respect to MIS’s compliance with newly imposed regulatory standards. Moody’s has received subpoenas and inquiries from states attorneys general and other governmental authorities and is responding to such investigations and inquiries. In addition, the Company is facing litigation from market participants relating to the performance of MIS rated securities. Although Moody’s in the normal course experiences such litigation, the volume and cost of defending such litigation has significantly increased following the events in the U.S. subprime residential mortgage sector and the credit markets more broadly over the last several years. On June 27, 2008, the Brockton Contributory Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the Company’s securities, filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against its directors and certain senior officers, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The plaintiff asserted various causes of action relating to the named defendants’ oversight of MIS’s ratings of RMBS and constant-proportion debt obligations, and their participation in the alleged public dissemination of false and misleading information about MIS’s ratings practices and/or a failure to implement internal procedures and controls to prevent the alleged wrongdoing. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief. On July 2, 2008, Thomas R. Flynn, a purported shareholder of the Company’s securities, filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting similar claims and seeking the same relief. The Flynn and Brockton cases were consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in November 2008. Similar claims were subsequently filed on October 30, 2008 by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on December 9, 2008 by Rena Nadoff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and on July 6, 2009 by W. A. Sokolowski in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 19, 2012, plaintiffs in the above shareholder derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement that would resolve all pending shareholder derivative cases. The settlement calls for Moody’s to adopt and maintain certain corporate governance changes for a period of two years. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed not to oppose an application for attorney’s fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $4.95 million. On July 20, 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 6, 2012, the District Court held a final settlement hearing and, on September 7, 2012, entered a Final Order and Judgment. No shareholder has appealed the Final Order and Judgment, and the time for an appeal to be filed expired on October 9, 2012. Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company’s securities against the Company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007. Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody’s Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities during the period February 3, 2006 through October 24, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company’s business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and financial results relating primarily to MIS’s ratings of structured finance products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the case. The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint in September 2008. On February 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others. On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals who purchased Moody’s Corporation common stock between February 3, 2006 and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed. On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify the proposed class. On April 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal the decision. The Company filed its response to the petition on April 25, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order denying plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action relates to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the “Cheyne SIV”) and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants is that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody’s but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody’s for aiding and abetting fraud. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, is scheduled for May 2013. According to plaintiffs’ most recent litigation disclosures, plaintiffs have asserted that their total alleged compensatory damages against all defendants, consisting of alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, are approximately $713 million. However, this figure includes approximately $303 million dollars of damages asserted in connection with claims that have been dismissed against Moody’s via the court’s August 17, 2012 ruling, noted above. Three of the four plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed against Moody’s, with claims aggregating approximately $288 million, have filed motions for reconsideration. In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG. These actions arise out of investments in securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge plc (the “Rhinebridge SIV”) and seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were false and misleading. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. In April 2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs have thus far not sought class certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims against them. In the course of the proceedings, the two plaintiffs have asserted that their total compensatory damages, consisting of alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, equal approximately $70 million. In June 2012, defendants IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH informed the court that they had executed a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. For claims, litigation and proceedings not related to income taxes, where it is both probable that a liability is expected to be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate. In other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant. As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, regulatory, enforcement and similar matters and contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters. The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its competitive position or on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As the process to resolve the pending matters referred to above progresses, management will continue to review the latest information available and assess its ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations and financial condition. However, in light of the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this time. For income tax matters, the Company employs the prescribed methodology of Topic 740 of the ASC which requires a company to first determine whether it is more-likely-than-not (defined as a likelihood of more than fifty percent) that a tax position will be sustained based on its technical merits as of the reporting date, assuming that taxing authorities will examine the position and have full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets this more-likely-than-not threshold is then measured and recognized at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely to be realized upon effective settlement with a taxing authority. Legacy Tax Matters Moody’s continues to have exposure to potential liabilities arising from Legacy Tax Matters. As of September 30, 2012, Moody’s has recorded liabilities for Legacy Tax Matters totaling $38.9 million. This includes liabilities and accrued interest due to New D&B arising from the 2000 Distribution Agreement. It is possible that the ultimate liability for Legacy Tax Matters could be greater than the liabilities recorded by the Company, which could result in additional charges that may be material to Moody’s future reported results, financial position and cash flows. The following summary of the relationships among Moody’s, New D&B and their predecessor entities is important in understanding the Company’s exposure to the Legacy Tax Matters. In November 1996, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation separated into three separate public companies: The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, ACNielsen Corporation and Cognizant Corporation. In June 1998, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation separated into two separate public companies: Old D&B and R.H. Donnelley Corporation. During 1998, Cognizant separated into two separate public companies: IMS Health Incorporated and Nielsen Media Research, Inc. In September 2000, Old D&B separated into two separate public companies: New D&B and Moody’s. Old D&B and its predecessors entered into global tax planning initiatives in the normal course of business. These initiatives are subject to normal review by tax authorities. Old D&B and its predecessors also entered into a series of agreements covering the sharing of any liabilities for payment of taxes, penalties and interest resulting from unfavorable IRS determinations on certain tax matters, and certain other potential tax liabilities, all as described in such agreements. Further, in connection with the 2000 Distribution and pursuant to the terms of the 2000 Distribution Agreement, New D&B and Moody’s have agreed on the financial responsibility for any potential liabilities related to these Legacy Tax Matters. At the time of the 2000 Distribution, New D&B paid Moody’s $55.0 million for 50% of certain anticipated future tax benefits through 2012. In the event that these tax benefits are not claimed or otherwise not realized by New D&B, or there is an IRS audit of New D&B impacting these tax benefits, Moody’s would be required to repay to New D&B an amount equal to the discounted value of its share of the related future tax benefits as well as its share of any tax liability incurred by New D&B. In September 2012, New D&B effectively settled IRS examinations for its 2005 and 2006 tax years. As a result, in the third quarter of 2012, Moody’s recorded a reduction of accrued interest expense of $4.4 million ($2.6 million, net of tax) and a reduction of other liabilities of $12.8 million, which was recorded as other non-operating income, relating to amounts due to New D&B. In June 2011, the statute of limitations for New D&B relating to its 2004 tax year expired. As a result, in the second quarter of 2011, Moody’s recorded a reduction of accrued interest expense of $2.8 million ($1.7 million, net of tax) and a reduction of other liabilities of $6.4 million, which was recorded as other non-operating income, relating to amounts due to New D&B. As of September 30, 2012, Moody’s liability with respect to this matter totaled $36.8 million. Additionally, in April 2011, Moody’s received a refund of $0.9 million ($0.6 million, net of tax) for interest assessed related to pre-spinoff tax years. In 2005, settlement agreements were executed with the IRS with respect to certain Legacy Tax Matters related to the years 1989-1990 and 1993-1996. With respect to these settlements, Moody’s and New D&B believed that IMS Health and NMR did not pay their full share of the liability to the IRS under the terms of the applicable separation agreements between the parties. Moody’s and New D&B subsequently paid these amounts to the IRS and commenced arbitration proceedings against IMS Health and NMR to resolve this dispute. Pursuant to these arbitration proceedings, the Company received $10.8 million ($6.5 million as a reduction of interest expense and $4.3 million as a reduction of tax expense) in 2009. The aforementioned settlement payment resulted in net income benefits of $8.2 million in 2009. The Company continues to carry a $2.1 million liability for this matter.

NOTE 14. CONTINGENCIES

From time to time, Moody’s is involved in legal and tax proceedings, governmental investigations, claims and litigation that are incidental to the Company’s business, including claims based on ratings assigned by MIS. Moody’s is also subject to ongoing tax audits in the normal course of business. Management periodically assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with these matters based upon the latest information available. Moody’s discloses material pending legal proceedings pursuant to SEC rules and other pending matters as it may determine to be appropriate.

Following the events in the U.S. subprime residential mortgage sector and the credit markets more broadly over the last several years, MIS and other credit rating agencies are the subject of intense scrutiny, increased regulation, ongoing investigation, and civil litigation. Legislative, regulatory and enforcement entities around the world are considering additional legislation, regulation and enforcement actions, including with respect to MIS’s compliance with newly imposed regulatory standards. Moody’s has received subpoenas and inquiries from states attorneys general and other governmental authorities and is responding to such investigations and inquiries.

In addition, the Company is facing litigation from market participants relating to the performance of MIS rated securities. Although Moody’s in the normal course experiences such litigation, the volume and cost of defending such litigation has significantly increased following the events in the U.S. subprime residential mortgage sector and the credit markets more broadly over the last several years.

On June 27, 2008, the Brockton Contributory Retirement System, a purported shareholder of the Company’s securities, filed a purported shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company against its directors and certain senior officers, and the Company as nominal defendant, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The plaintiff asserted various causes of action relating to the named defendants’ oversight of MIS’s ratings of RMBS and constant-proportion debt obligations, and their participation in the alleged public dissemination of false and misleading information about MIS’s ratings practices and/or a failure to implement internal procedures and controls to prevent the alleged wrongdoing. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief. On July 2, 2008, Thomas R. Flynn, a purported shareholder of the Company’s securities, filed a similar purported shareholder derivative complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting similar claims and seeking the same relief. The Flynn and Brockton cases were consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in November 2008. Similar claims were subsequently filed on October 30, 2008 by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on December 9, 2008 by Rena Nadoff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and on July 6, 2009 by W. A. Sokolowski in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 19, 2012, plaintiffs in the above shareholder derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement that would resolve all pending shareholder derivative cases. The settlement calls for Moody’s to adopt and maintain certain corporate governance changes for a period of two years. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed not to oppose an application for attorney’s fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $4.95 million. On July 20, 2012, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 6, 2012, the District Court held a final settlement hearing and, on September 7, 2012, entered a Final Order and Judgment. No shareholder has appealed the Final Order and Judgment, and the time for an appeal to be filed expired on October 9, 2012.

Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company’s securities against the Company and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19, 2007. The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2007. Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody’s Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities during the period February 3, 2006 through October 24, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements concerning the Company’s business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and financial results relating primarily to MIS’s ratings of structured finance products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the case. The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint in September 2008. On February 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others. On January 22, 2010, plaintiffs moved to certify a class of individuals who purchased Moody’s Corporation common stock between February 3, 2006 and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed. On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs’ motion to certify the proposed class. On April 14, 2011, plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal the decision. The Company filed its response to the petition on April 25, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order denying plaintiffs’ petition for leave to appeal.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action relates to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the “Cheyne SIV”) and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants is that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies’ motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody’s but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody’s for aiding and abetting fraud. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, is scheduled for May 2013. According to plaintiffs’ most recent litigation disclosures, plaintiffs have asserted that their total alleged compensatory damages against all defendants, consisting of alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, are approximately $713 million. However, this figure includes approximately $303 million dollars of damages asserted in connection with claims that have been dismissed against Moody’s via the court’s August 17, 2012 ruling, noted above. Three of the four plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed against Moody’s, with claims aggregating approximately $288 million, have filed motions for reconsideration.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG. These actions arise out of investments in securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Rhinebridge plc (the “Rhinebridge SIV”) and seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint asserted a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency defendants, alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were false and misleading. The case is pending before the same judge presiding over the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. In April 2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that asserted claims against the rating agency defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the new claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a claim for aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs have thus far not sought class certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims against them. In the course of the proceedings, the two plaintiffs have asserted that their total compensatory damages, consisting of alleged lost principal and lost interest, plus statutory interest, equal approximately $70 million. In June 2012, defendants IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG and IKB Credit Asset Management GmbH informed the court that they had executed a confidential settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.

For claims, litigation and proceedings not related to income taxes, where it is both probable that a liability is expected to be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records liabilities in the consolidated financial statements and periodically adjusts these as appropriate. In other instances, because of uncertainties related to the probable outcome and/or the amount or range of loss, management does not record a liability but discloses the contingency if significant. As additional information becomes available, the Company adjusts its assessments and estimates of such matters accordingly. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of litigation, regulatory, enforcement and similar matters and contingencies, particularly where the claimants seek large or indeterminate damages or where the parties assert novel legal theories or the matters involve a large number of parties, the Company cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be or the timing of any resolution of such matters. The Company also cannot predict the impact (if any) that any such matters may have on how its business is conducted, on its competitive position or on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. As the process to resolve the pending matters referred to above progresses, management will continue to review the latest information available and assess its ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on its operations and financial condition. However, in light of the large or indeterminate damages sought in some of them, the absence of similar court rulings on the theories of law asserted and uncertainties regarding apportionment of any potential damages, an estimate of the range of possible losses cannot be made at this time. For income tax matters, the Company employs the prescribed methodology of Topic 740 of the ASC which requires a company to first determine whether it is more-likely-than-not (defined as a likelihood of more than fifty percent) that a tax position will be sustained based on its technical merits as of the reporting date, assuming that taxing authorities will examine the position and have full knowledge of all relevant information. A tax position that meets this more-likely-than-not threshold is then measured and recognized at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely to be realized upon effective settlement with a taxing authority.

Legacy Tax Matters

Moody’s continues to have exposure to potential liabilities arising from Legacy Tax Matters. As of September 30, 2012, Moody’s has recorded liabilities for Legacy Tax Matters totaling $38.9 million. This includes liabilities and accrued interest due to New D&B arising from the 2000 Distribution Agreement. It is possible that the ultimate liability for Legacy Tax Matters could be greater than the liabilities recorded by the Company, which could result in additional charges that may be material to Moody’s future reported results, financial position and cash flows.

The following summary of the relationships among Moody’s, New D&B and their predecessor entities is important in understanding the Company’s exposure to the Legacy Tax Matters.

In November 1996, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation separated into three separate public companies: The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, ACNielsen Corporation and Cognizant Corporation. In June 1998, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation separated into two separate public companies: Old D&B and R.H. Donnelley Corporation. During 1998, Cognizant separated into two separate public companies: IMS Health Incorporated and Nielsen Media Research, Inc. In September 2000, Old D&B separated into two separate public companies: New D&B and Moody’s.

Old D&B and its predecessors entered into global tax planning initiatives in the normal course of business. These initiatives are subject to normal review by tax authorities. Old D&B and its predecessors also entered into a series of agreements covering the sharing of any liabilities for payment of taxes, penalties and interest resulting from unfavorable IRS determinations on certain tax matters, and certain other potential tax liabilities, all as described in such agreements. Further, in connection with the 2000 Distribution and pursuant to the terms of the 2000 Distribution Agreement, New D&B and Moody’s have agreed on the financial responsibility for any potential liabilities related to these Legacy Tax Matters.

At the time of the 2000 Distribution, New D&B paid Moody’s $55.0 million for 50% of certain anticipated future tax benefits through 2012. In the event that these tax benefits are not claimed or otherwise not realized by New D&B, or there is an IRS audit of New D&B impacting these tax benefits, Moody’s would be required to repay to New D&B an amount equal to the discounted value of its share of the related future tax benefits as well as its share of any tax liability incurred by New D&B. In September 2012, New D&B effectively settled IRS examinations for its 2005 and 2006 tax years. As a result, in the third quarter of 2012, Moody’s recorded a reduction of accrued interest expense of $4.4 million ($2.6 million, net of tax) and a reduction of other liabilities of $12.8 million, which was recorded as other non-operating income, relating to amounts due to New D&B. In June 2011, the statute of limitations for New D&B relating to its 2004 tax year expired. As a result, in the second quarter of 2011, Moody’s recorded a reduction of accrued interest expense of $2.8 million ($1.7 million, net of tax) and a reduction of other liabilities of $6.4 million, which was recorded as other non-operating income, relating to amounts due to New D&B. As of September 30, 2012, Moody’s liability with respect to this matter totaled $36.8 million.

Additionally, in April 2011, Moody’s received a refund of $0.9 million ($0.6 million, net of tax) for interest assessed related to pre-spinoff tax years.

In 2005, settlement agreements were executed with the IRS with respect to certain Legacy Tax Matters related to the years 1989-1990 and 1993-1996. With respect to these settlements, Moody’s and New D&B believed that IMS Health and NMR did not pay their full share of the liability to the IRS under the terms of the applicable separation agreements between the parties. Moody’s and New D&B subsequently paid these amounts to the IRS and commenced arbitration proceedings against IMS Health and NMR to resolve this dispute. Pursuant to these arbitration proceedings, the Company received $10.8 million ($6.5 million as a reduction of interest expense and $4.3 million as a reduction of tax expense) in 2009. The aforementioned settlement payment resulted in net income benefits of $8.2 million in 2009. The Company continues to carry a $2.1 million liability for this matter.