CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties. In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup establishes accruals for contingencies, including the litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to those matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters. If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At June 30, 2014, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $5 billion at December 31, 2013, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K. As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosure involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate. Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Commodities Financing Contracts Beginning in May 2014, Citigroup became aware of reports of potential fraud relating to the financing of physical metal stored at the Qingdao and Penglai ports in China. Citigroup has contracts with a counterparty in relation to Citigroup’s providing financing collateralized by physical metal stored at these ports. On July 22, 2014, Citigroup commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce its rights against that counterparty under the relevant agreements in relation to approximately $285 million in financing. That counterparty and a Chinese warehouse provider previously brought actions in the English courts to establish the parties’ rights and obligations under these agreements. Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: On June 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion and order reversing the district court’s order in UNITED STATES SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. refusing to approve Citigroup’s proposed settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The action has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Second Circuit’s decision. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 7387 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.) and 11-5227 (2d Cir.). As of July 30, 2014, the SEC had advised Citigroup that it had concluded its investigation of Citigroup’s mortgage-backed securities (MBS) practices and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action. As previously disclosed, on July 14, 2014, Citigroup reached a settlement of an investigation by the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. The settlement resolved actual and potential civil claims by the Department of Justice, several state attorneys general, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) relating to MBS and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) issued, structured, or underwritten by Citigroup between 2003 and 2008. The settlement included a $4.0 billion civil monetary payment to the Department of Justice, $500 million in payments to certain state attorneys general and the FDIC, and $2.5 billion in consumer relief (to be provided by the end of 2018). The consumer relief will be in the form of financing provided for the construction and preservation of affordable multifamily rental housing, principal reduction and forbearance for residential loans, as well as other direct consumer benefits from various relief programs. Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions: Certain of the actions brought by purchasers of MBS sponsored, underwritten, or sold by Citigroup have been resolved through settlement and dismissed with prejudice. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 2890 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 653100/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.), and 11 Civ. 10952 (D. Mass) (O’Toole, J.). As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending MBS and CDO investor suits was approximately $7.1 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with MBS and CDO investors threatening litigation was approximately $1.4 billion. On May 20, 2014, Commerzbank A.G. London Branch filed a complaint in COMMERZBANK A.G. LONDON BRANCH v. UBS AG, ET AL., alleging fraud and other claims in connection with various financial institutions’, including Citigroup’s, issuance and underwriting of MBS. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). Mortgage-Backed Security Repurchase Claims: The deadline for trustees to accept or reject Citigroup’s April 7, 2014 offer of settlement to resolve representation and warranty repurchase claims related to certain legacy securitizations initially was extended to August 14, 2014. Citigroup subsequently agreed to further extend that deadline to October 31, 2014. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On June 18, 2014, a group of investors in 48 MBS trusts for which Citibank, N.A. served or currently serves as trustee filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court in BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S. PORTFOLIO, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. The complaint, like those filed against other MBS trustees, alleges that Citibank, N.A. failed to pursue contractual remedies against loan originators, securitization sponsors, and servicers. The securitizations at issue were sponsored by American Home Mortgage, BNC, Countryplace, First Franklin, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, PHH Mortgage, Wachovia and Washington Mutual. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651868/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). On June 27, 2014, a separate group of MBS investors filed a summons with notice in FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF TOPEKA, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. The summons with notice alleges that Citibank, N.A., as trustee for an unspecified number of MBS, failed to pursue remedies on behalf of the securitization trusts. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651973/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Counterparty and Investor Actions On June 18, 2014, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s affirmance of the District Court’s confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of Citigroup. The petition is pending. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12 Civ. 283 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 13-1068-cv (2d Cir.) and No. 13-1500 (U.S.). KIKOs As of June 30, 2014, there were 103 civil lawsuits filed by small and medium sized export businesses against Citibank Korea Inc. (CKI). To date, 96 decisions have been rendered at the district court level, and CKI has prevailed in 76 of those decisions. In the other 20 decisions, plaintiffs were awarded only a portion of the damages sought. The damage awards total in the aggregate approximately $38.7 million. CKI is appealing the 20 adverse decisions. A significant number of plaintiffs that had decisions rendered against them are also filing appeals, including plaintiffs that were awarded less than all of the damages they sought. Of the 96 cases decided at the district court level, 65 have been appealed to the high court, including the 20 in which an adverse decision was rendered against CKI in the district court. Of the 62 appeals decided or settled at high court level, CKI prevailed in 45 cases, and in the other 17 cases plaintiffs were awarded partial damages. As a result, the aggregate damages awarded against CKI decreased by approximately $10.5 million. CKI is appealing nine of the adverse decisions to the Korean Supreme Court and many plaintiffs have filed appeals to the Supreme Court as well. As of June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court has rendered 24 judgments relating to CKI. CKI prevailed in 21 cases. The Supreme Court confirmed lower court judgments in which plaintiffs were awarded partial damages in three cases. As a result, the aggregate damages awarded against CKI decreased by approximately $0.3 million. After taking into account all decisions rendered through June 30, 2014 at the district court, high court, or Supreme Court levels, the damages awarded against CKI currently total in the aggregate approximately $27.9 million. Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings On July 21, 2014, PricewaterhouseCoopers, AG Zurich, as Foreign Representative and Liquidator of Lehman Brothers Finance AG, a/k/a Lehman Brothers Finance SA, filed a complaint in LEHMAN BROTHERS FINANCE AG, IN LIQUIDATION, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. against Citibank, N.A., CKI and Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., asserting that the Citigroup defendants have improperly withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. Plaintiffs seek to recover approximately $70 million, plus interest. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-2050 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.). Foreign Exchange Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On April 30, 2014, plaintiff in the putative class action LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. filed an amended complaint. On May 30, 2014, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved to dismiss that action, as well as the putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION and the putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:14-cv-1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 1:13-cv-7953 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (LIBOR MDL), (i) granting a motion by the putative class of purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments for leave to amend their complaint; (ii) denying the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of portions of the court’s March 29, 2013 order; (iii) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims based on contracts purchased between May 2008 and April 2009; and (iv) denying the motion by Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., and certain other defendants to dismiss unjust enrichment and contract-based claims of the putative class of OTC purchasers of derivative instruments. Additional information concerning this consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the Second Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and 13-1174 (U.S.). On May 19, 2014, Prudential Investment Portfolios filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks, seeking to recover losses as a result of purported LIBOR manipulation. Plaintiff asserts federal antitrust and RICO claims, as well as various common law claims. On June 11, 2014, this action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for consolidation in the LIBOR MDL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available under the docket number 1:14-cv-04189 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). Separately, on June 17, 2014, plaintiff in the putative class action LAYDON v. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. filed a motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint and a proposed third amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL. filed a second amended complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. as defendants. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported EURIBOR manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act and RICO, and for unjust enrichment. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). Interchange Fees Litigation On July 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’, including Citigroup’s, motions to dismiss complaints filed by opt-out merchants in IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGTATION. Two of the opt-out suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL. and SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL. name Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.); 13-cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.), and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist. Ct.). Oceanografía Fraud and Related Matters Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On April 28, 2014, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court in OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. CITIGROUP INC., seeking to inspect Citigroup’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C.§ 220, for the stated purpose of investigating possible mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty by the Citigroup Board of Directors and/or senior management in connection with various matters, including Citigroup’s February 28, 2014 announcement of a fraud discovered in connection with an extension of credit to Oceanografía S.A. de C.V. by Citigroup affiliate Banamex. On June 27, 2014, the Master in Chancery issued a draft report recommending that the court enter an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request for inspection. On July 7, 2014, Citigroup filed a notice of exception to the Master’s draft report. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 9587-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M.). Settlement Payments Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.

CONTINGENCIES

The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties.

In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup establishes accruals for contingencies, including the litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to those matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters.

If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At June 30, 2014, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $5 billion at December 31, 2013, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosure involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate.

Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Commodities Financing Contracts

Beginning in May 2014, Citigroup became aware of reports of potential fraud relating to the financing of physical metal stored at the Qingdao and Penglai ports in China. Citigroup has contracts with a counterparty in relation to Citigroup’s providing financing collateralized by physical metal stored at these ports. On July 22, 2014, Citigroup commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce its rights against that counterparty under the relevant agreements in relation to approximately $285 million in financing. That counterparty and a Chinese warehouse provider previously brought actions in the English courts to establish the parties’ rights and obligations under these agreements.

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: On June 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion and order reversing the district court’s order in UNITED STATES SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. refusing to approve Citigroup’s proposed settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The action has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Second Circuit’s decision. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 7387 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.) and 11-5227 (2d Cir.).

As of July 30, 2014, the SEC had advised Citigroup that it had concluded its investigation of Citigroup’s mortgage-backed securities (MBS) practices and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action.

As previously disclosed, on July 14, 2014, Citigroup reached a settlement of an investigation by the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. The settlement resolved actual and potential civil claims by the Department of Justice, several state attorneys general, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) relating to MBS and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) issued, structured, or underwritten by Citigroup between 2003 and 2008. The settlement included a $4.0 billion civil monetary payment to the Department of Justice, $500 million in payments to certain state attorneys general and the FDIC, and $2.5 billion in consumer relief (to be provided by the end of 2018). The consumer relief will be in the form of financing provided for the construction and preservation of affordable multifamily rental housing, principal reduction and forbearance for residential loans, as well as other direct consumer benefits from various relief programs.

Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions:

Certain of the actions brought by purchasers of MBS sponsored, underwritten, or sold by Citigroup have been resolved through settlement and dismissed with prejudice. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 2890 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 653100/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.), and 11 Civ. 10952 (D. Mass) (O’Toole, J.).

As of June 30, 2014, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending MBS and CDO investor suits was approximately $7.1 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with MBS and CDO investors threatening litigation was approximately $1.4 billion.

On May 20, 2014, Commerzbank A.G. London Branch filed a complaint in COMMERZBANK A.G. LONDON BRANCH v. UBS AG, ET AL., alleging fraud and other claims in connection with various financial institutions’, including Citigroup’s, issuance and underwriting of MBS. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.).

Mortgage-Backed Security Repurchase Claims: The deadline for trustees to accept or reject Citigroup’s April 7, 2014 offer of settlement to resolve representation and warranty repurchase claims related to certain legacy securitizations initially was extended to August 14, 2014. Citigroup subsequently agreed to further extend that deadline to October 31, 2014.

Mortgage-Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On June 18, 2014, a group of investors in 48 MBS trusts for which Citibank, N.A. served or currently serves as trustee filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court in BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S. PORTFOLIO, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. The complaint, like those filed against other MBS trustees, alleges that Citibank, N.A. failed to pursue contractual remedies against loan originators, securitization sponsors, and servicers. The securitizations at issue were sponsored by American Home Mortgage, BNC, Countryplace, First Franklin, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, PHH Mortgage, Wachovia and Washington Mutual. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651868/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). On June 27, 2014, a separate group of MBS investors filed a summons with notice in FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF TOPEKA, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. The summons with notice alleges that Citibank, N.A., as trustee for an unspecified number of MBS, failed to pursue remedies on behalf of the securitization trusts. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651973/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

Counterparty and Investor Actions

On June 18, 2014, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s affirmance of the District Court’s confirmation of the arbitration award in favor of Citigroup. The petition is pending. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12 Civ. 283 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 13-1068-cv (2d Cir.) and No. 13-1500 (U.S.).

KIKOs

As of June 30, 2014, there were 103 civil lawsuits filed by small and medium sized export businesses against Citibank Korea Inc. (CKI). To date, 96 decisions have been rendered at the district court level, and CKI has prevailed in 76 of those decisions. In the other 20 decisions, plaintiffs were awarded only a portion of the damages sought. The damage awards total in the aggregate approximately $38.7 million. CKI is appealing the 20 adverse decisions. A significant number of plaintiffs that had decisions rendered against them are also filing appeals, including plaintiffs that were awarded less than all of the damages they sought.

Of the 96 cases decided at the district court level, 65 have been appealed to the high court, including the 20 in which an adverse decision was rendered against CKI in the district court. Of the 62 appeals decided or settled at high court level, CKI prevailed in 45 cases, and in the other 17 cases plaintiffs were awarded partial damages. As a result, the aggregate damages awarded against CKI decreased by approximately $10.5 million. CKI is appealing nine of the adverse decisions to the Korean Supreme Court and many plaintiffs have filed appeals to the Supreme Court as well.

As of June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court has rendered 24 judgments relating to CKI. CKI prevailed in 21 cases. The Supreme Court confirmed lower court judgments in which plaintiffs were awarded partial damages in three cases. As a result, the aggregate damages awarded against CKI decreased by approximately $0.3 million.

After taking into account all decisions rendered through June 30, 2014 at the district court, high court, or Supreme Court levels, the damages awarded against CKI currently total in the aggregate approximately $27.9 million.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings

On July 21, 2014, PricewaterhouseCoopers, AG Zurich, as Foreign Representative and Liquidator of Lehman Brothers Finance AG, a/k/a Lehman Brothers Finance SA, filed a complaint in LEHMAN BROTHERS FINANCE AG, IN LIQUIDATION, ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. against Citibank, N.A., CKI and Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., asserting that the Citigroup defendants have improperly withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. Plaintiffs seek to recover approximately $70 million, plus interest. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-2050 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On April 30, 2014, plaintiff in the putative class action LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. filed an amended complaint. On May 30, 2014, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved to dismiss that action, as well as the putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION and the putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 1:14-cv-1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 1:13-cv-7953 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On June 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (LIBOR MDL), (i) granting a motion by the putative class of purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments for leave to amend their complaint; (ii) denying the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of portions of the court’s March 29, 2013 order; (iii) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims based on contracts purchased between May 2008 and April 2009; and (iv) denying the motion by Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., and certain other defendants to dismiss unjust enrichment and contract-based claims of the putative class of OTC purchasers of derivative instruments. Additional information concerning this consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the Second Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and 13-1174 (U.S.).

On May 19, 2014, Prudential Investment Portfolios filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks, seeking to recover losses as a result of purported LIBOR manipulation. Plaintiff asserts federal antitrust and RICO claims, as well as various common law claims. On June 11, 2014, this action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for consolidation in the LIBOR MDL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available under the docket number 1:14-cv-04189 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

Separately, on June 17, 2014, plaintiff in the putative class action LAYDON v. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. filed a motion for leave to amend the second amended complaint and a proposed third amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL. filed a second amended complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank, N.A. as defendants. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported EURIBOR manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act and RICO, and for unjust enrichment. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

Interchange Fees Litigation

On July 18, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’, including Citigroup’s, motions to dismiss complaints filed by opt-out merchants in IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGTATION. Two of the opt-out suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL. and SPEEDY STOP FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL. name Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.); 13-cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.), and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist. Ct.).

Oceanografía Fraud and Related Matters

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On April 28, 2014, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System filed a complaint in Delaware Chancery Court in OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. CITIGROUP INC., seeking to inspect Citigroup’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C.§ 220, for the stated purpose of investigating possible mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty by the Citigroup Board of Directors and/or senior management in connection with various matters, including Citigroup’s February 28, 2014 announcement of a fraud discovered in connection with an extension of credit to Oceanografía S.A. de C.V. by Citigroup affiliate Banamex. On June 27, 2014, the Master in Chancery issued a draft report recommending that the court enter an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request for inspection. On July 7, 2014, Citigroup filed a notice of exception to the Master’s draft report. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 9587-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M.).

Settlement Payments

Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.