CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES Accounting and Disclosure Framework ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation and regulatory matters. ASC 450 defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” It imposes different requirements for the recognition and disclosure of loss contingencies based on the likelihood of occurrence of the contingent future event or events. It distinguishes among degrees of likelihood using the following three terms: “probable,” meaning that “the future event or events are likely to occur”; “remote,” meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”; and “reasonably possible,” meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely.” These three terms are used below as defined in ASC 450. Accruals. ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.” 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. When the reasonable estimate of the loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum amount of the range is accrued, unless some higher amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range. 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. Disclosure. ASC 450 requires disclosure of a loss contingency if “there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred” and there is no accrual for the loss because the conditions described above are not met or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In accordance with ASC 450, if Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because Citigroup believes that a loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or that a loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, and the matter thus does not meet the criteria for accrual, and the reasonably possible loss is material, it discloses the loss contingency. In addition, Citigroup discloses matters for which it has accrued if it believes a reasonably possible exposure to material loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup’s disclosure includes an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. ASC 450 does not require disclosure of an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss where an estimate cannot be made. Neither accrual nor disclosure is required for losses that are deemed remote. Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies Overview. In addition to the matters described below, in the ordinary course of business, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (for purposes of this section, sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) routinely are named as defendants in, or as parties to, various legal actions and proceedings. Certain of these actions and proceedings assert claims or seek relief in connection with alleged violations of consumer protection, fair lending, securities, banking, antifraud, antitrust, anti-money laundering, employment and other statutory and common laws. Certain of these actual or threatened legal actions and proceedings include claims for substantial or indeterminate compensatory or punitive damages, or for injunctive relief, and in some instances seek recovery on a class-wide basis. In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup and Related Parties also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal), certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, restitution, disgorgement, injunctions or other relief. In addition, certain affiliates and subsidiaries of Citigroup are banks, registered broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, investment advisers or other regulated entities and, in those capacities, are subject to regulation by various U.S., state and foreign securities, banking, commodity futures, consumer protection and other regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, Citigroup and such affiliates and subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities. From time to time Citigroup and Related Parties also receive grand jury subpoenas and other requests for information or assistance, formal or informal, from federal or state law enforcement agencies including, among others, various United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and other divisions of the Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to Citigroup and its customers. Because of the global scope of Citigroup’s operations, and its presence in countries around the world, Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to litigation and governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) in multiple jurisdictions with legal and regulatory regimes that may differ substantially, and present substantially different risks, from those Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to in the United States. In some instances Citigroup and Related Parties may be involved in proceedings involving the same subject matter in multiple jurisdictions, which may result in overlapping, cumulative or inconsistent outcomes. Citigroup seeks to resolve all litigation and regulatory matters in the manner management believes is in the best interests of Citigroup and its shareholders, and contests liability, allegations of wrongdoing and, where applicable, the amount of damages or scope of any penalties or other relief sought as appropriate in each pending matter. Inherent Uncertainty of the Matters Disclosed. Certain of the matters disclosed below involve claims for substantial or indeterminate damages. The claims asserted in these matters typically are broad, often spanning a multi-year period and sometimes a wide range of business activities, and the plaintiffs’ or claimants’ alleged damages frequently are not quantified or factually supported in the complaint or statement of claim. Other matters relate to regulatory investigations or proceedings, as to which there may be no objective basis for quantifying the range of potential fine, penalty, or other remedy. As a result, Citigroup is often unable to estimate the loss in such matters, even if it believes that a loss is probable or reasonably possible, until developments in the case or investigation have yielded additional information sufficient to support a quantitative assessment of the range of reasonably possible loss. Such developments may include, among other things, discovery from adverse parties or third parties, rulings by the court on key issues, analysis by retained experts, and engagement in settlement negotiations. Depending on a range of factors, such as the complexity of the facts, the novelty of the legal theories, the pace of discovery, the court’s scheduling order, the timing of court decisions, and the adverse party’s willingness to negotiate in good faith toward a resolution, it may be months or years after the filing of a case or commencement of an investigation before an estimate of the range of reasonably possible loss can be made. Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made. For some of the matters disclosed below, Citigroup is currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued (if any). For some of the matters included within this estimation, an accrual has been made because a loss is believed to be both probable and reasonably estimable, but an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, although estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable; in these cases the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2014, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss in future periods for these matters ranges up to approximately $4 billion in the aggregate. These estimates are based on currently available information. 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 disclosures 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, (i) Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; (ii) 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 (iii) 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 estimate 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. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made. For other matters disclosed below, Citigroup is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. Many of these matters remain in very preliminary stages (even in some cases where a substantial period of time has passed since the commencement of the matter), with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court or tribunal defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. In many of these matters, Citigroup has not yet answered the complaint or statement of claim or asserted its defenses, nor has it engaged in any negotiations with the adverse party (whether a regulator or a private party). For all these reasons, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters. Opinion of Management as to Eventual Outcome. 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. 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, with the agreements providing that the counterparty would repurchase the inventory at a specified date in the future (typically three to six months). Pursuant to the agreements, the counterparty is responsible for providing clean title to the inventory, insuring it, and attesting that there are no third party encumbrances. The counterparty is a non-Chinese subsidiary of a large multinational corporation, and the counterparty’s obligations under the contracts are guaranteed by the parent company. On July 22, 2014, Citigroup commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce its rights against the 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. In early December 2014, the English court conducted a preliminary trial concerning, among other issues, the question of whether Citigroup appropriately accelerated its counterparty’s obligation to repay Citigroup under the applicable agreements given these facts and circumstances. The court has not yet issued a ruling following trial. The financings at issue are carried at fair value. As with any position carried at fair value, Citigroup adjusts the positions and records a gain or loss in the Consolidated Statements of Income in accordance with GAAP. Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit crisis that began in 2007. Such matters include, among other types of proceedings, claims asserted by: (i) individual investors and purported classes of investors in securities issued by Citigroup alleging violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) investors in securities and other investments underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including securities issued by other public companies, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), auction rate securities (ARS), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. In addition to these matters, Citigroup continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests for information from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FINRA, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice and subdivisions thereof, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bank regulators, and other government agencies and authorities, in connection with various formal and informal (and, in many instances, industry-wide) inquiries concerning Citigroup’s mortgage-related conduct and business activities, as well as other business activities affected by the credit crisis. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup’s sponsorship, packaging, issuance, marketing, trading, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS, its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and foreclosure of residential mortgages, and its origination, servicing, and securitization of auto loans. Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters Securities Actions: Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a variety of putative class actions and individual actions arising out of Citigroup’s exposure to CDOs and other assets that declined in value during the financial crisis. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. These actions assert a wide range of claims, including claims under the federal securities laws, foreign securities laws, ERISA, and state law. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 10 Civ. 9646 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 11 Civ. 7672 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.), 12 Civ. 6653 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 13-4488, 13-4504, 14-2545, and 14-3014 (2d Cir.). Beginning in November 2007, certain Citigroup affiliates also have been named as defendants arising out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions brought by investors in securities issued by public companies adversely affected by the credit crisis. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. As a general matter, issuers indemnify underwriters in connection with such claims, but in certain of these matters Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the financial condition of the issuer. Regulatory Actions: On July 14, 2014, Citigroup reached a settlement of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group’s investigation. 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 CDOs issued, structured, or underwritten by Citigroup between 2003 and 2008. It 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: Beginning in July 2010, Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in complaints filed by purchasers of MBS and CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup. The complaints generally assert that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the credit quality of the assets underlying the securities or the manner in which those assets were selected, and typically assert claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, state blue sky laws, and/or common-law misrepresentation-based causes of action. The majority of these matters have been resolved through settlement or otherwise. As of December 31, 2014, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigations was approximately $4.9 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation was approximately $1.4 billion. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.), 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.), 653990/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.), and CL 14-399 (Vir. Cir. Ct.) (Hughes, J.). Mortgage-Backed Security Repurchase Claims: Various parties to MBS securitizations and other interested parties have asserted that certain Citigroup affiliates breached representations and warranties made in connection with mortgage loans sold into securitization trusts (private-label securitizations). Typically, these claims are based on allegations that securitized mortgages were not underwritten in accordance with the applicable underwriting standards. Citigroup also has received numerous inquiries, demands for loan files, and requests to toll (extend) the applicable statutes of limitation for representation and warranty claims relating to its private-label securitizations. These inquiries, demands and requests have been made by trustees of securitization trusts and others. On April 7, 2014, Citigroup entered into an agreement with 18 institutional investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP regarding the resolution of representation and warranty repurchase claims related to certain legacy securitizations. Pursuant to the agreement, Citigroup made a binding offer to the trustees of 68 Citigroup-sponsored mortgage securitization trusts to pay $1.125 billion to the trusts to resolve these claims, plus certain fees and expenses. The 68 trusts covered by the agreement represent all of the trusts established by Citigroup’s legacy Securities and Banking business during 2005-2008 for which Citigroup affiliates made representations and warranties to the trusts. On December 19, 2014, Citigroup, the 18 institutional investors, and the trustees for these securitizations executed a revised settlement agreement resolving a substantial majority of the claims contemplated by the April 7, 2014 offer of settlement. On December 31, 2014, the trustees amended the settlement agreement to accept the offer as to certain additional claims. As of December 31, 2014, the trustees have accepted the settlement for 64 trusts in whole, and the trustees have accepted in part and excluded in part four trusts from the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the trustees’ acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding, which was initiated by the trustees on December 21, 2014. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653902/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). To date, trustees have filed six actions against Citigroup seeking to enforce certain of these contractual repurchase claims in connection with four private-label securitizations. Each of the six actions is in the early stages of proceedings. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims as to approximately 6,700 loans that were securitized into these four securitizations, as well as any other loans that are later found to have breached representations and warranties. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 2843 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 13 Civ. 6989 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 653816/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Kornreich, J.), and 653930/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). 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 State 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. This action was withdrawn without prejudice, effective December 17, 2014. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651868/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.). On November 24, 2014, largely the same group of investors filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. V. CITIBANK, N.A., alleging similar claims relating to 27 MBS trusts sponsored by UBS, Lehman Brothers, American Home Mortgage, Goldman Sachs, Country Place, PHH Mortgage, Wachovia and Washington Mutual. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-cv-9373 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, 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 alleges that Citibank, N.A., as trustee for an unspecified number of MBS, failed to pursue remedies on behalf of the trusts. This action was withdrawn without prejudice on November 10, 2014. 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 In 2010, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) commenced an arbitration (ADIA I) against Citigroup and Related Parties before the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), alleging statutory and common law claims in connection with its $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup in December 2007. ADIA sought rescission of the investment agreement or, in the alternative, more than $4 billion in damages. Following a hearing in May 2011 and post-hearing proceedings, on October 14, 2011, the arbitration panel issued a final award and statement of reasons finding in favor of Citigroup on all claims asserted by ADIA. On March 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied ADIA’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Citigroup’s cross-petition to confirm. ADIA appealed and, on February 19, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. ADIA filed a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2014. 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 13-1500 (U.S.). On August 20, 2013, ADIA commenced a second arbitration (ADIA II) against Citigroup before the ICDR, alleging common law claims arising out of the same investment at issue in ADIA I. On August 28, 2013, Citigroup filed a complaint against ADIA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin ADIA II on the ground that it is barred by the court’s judgment confirming the arbitral award in ADIA I. On September 23, 2013, ADIA filed motions to dismiss Citigroup’s complaint and to compel arbitration. On November 25, 2013, the court denied Citigroup’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted ADIA’s motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration. On December 23, 2013, Citigroup appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 14, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 6073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.) and 13-4825 (2d Cir.). Alternative Investment Fund-Related Litigation and Other Matters Since mid-2008, the SEC has been investigating the management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon funds, alternative investment funds managed and marketed by certain Citigroup affiliates that suffered substantial losses during the credit crisis. In addition to the SEC inquiry, on June 11, 2012, the New York Attorney General served a subpoena on a Citigroup affiliate seeking documents and information concerning certain of these funds, and, on August 1, 2012, the Massachusetts Attorney General served a Civil Investigative Demand on a Citigroup affiliate seeking similar documents and information. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. Citigroup has entered into tolling agreements with the SEC and the New York Attorney General concerning certain claims related to the investigations. Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2012 on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed indirectly by a Citigroup affiliate. Plaintiffs assert a variety of state common law claims, alleging that they and other investors were misled into investing in the funds and, later, not redeeming their investments. The complaint seeks to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). Auction Rate Securities-Related Litigation and Other Matters Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous actions and proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and purchasers or issuers of ARS and an issuer of variable rate demand obligations, asserting federal and state law claims arising from the collapse of the market in 2008, which plaintiffs contend Citigroup and other ARS underwriters and broker-dealers foresaw or should have foreseen, but failed adequately to disclose. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. Most of the remaining matters are in arbitrations pending before FINRA. Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings Beginning in September 2010, Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in various adversary proceedings and claim objections in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and the liquidation proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) and Lehman Brothers Finance AG, a/k/a Lehman Brothers Finance SA (LBF). Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08-13555, 08-01420, and 09-10583 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.). On February 8, 2012, Citibank, N.A. and certain Citigroup affiliates were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding asserting objections to proofs of claim totaling approximately $2.6 billion filed by Citibank, N.A. and those affiliates, and claims under federal bankruptcy and state law to recover $2 billion deposited by LBHI with Citibank, N.A. against which Citibank, N.A. asserts a right of setoff. Plaintiffs also seek avoidance of a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank, N.A. and other relief. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 16, 2012, January 29, 2014, and December 9, 2014, asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims. Discovery is ongoing. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12-01044 and 08-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.). On July 21, 2014, an adversary proceeding was filed against Citibank, N.A., Citibank Korea Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., asserting that defendants improperly have withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. An amended complaint was filed on August 6, 2014, and defendants filed an answer on October 6, 2014. Plaintiffs seek to recover approximately $70 million, plus interest. Discovery is ongoing. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09-10583 and 14-02050 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.). Terra Firma Litigation In December 2009, the general partners of two related private equity funds filed a complaint in New York state court, subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting multi-billion-dollar fraud and other common law claims against certain Citigroup affiliates arising out of the May 2007 auction of the music company EMI, in which Citigroup acted as advisor to EMI and as a lender to plaintiffs’ acquisition vehicle. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Citigroup on November 4, 2010. Plaintiffs appealed from the entry of the judgment. On May 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the November 2010 jury verdict in favor of Citigroup and ordered that the case be retried. On March 7, 2014, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining claims in the action, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to re-file those claims in England. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 10459 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.) and 11-0126-cv (2d Cir.). In August and September 2013, plaintiffs in the New York proceedings, together with their affiliates and principal, filed fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims arising out of the EMI auction in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court in Manchester, England, against certain Citigroup affiliates. The cases have since been transferred to the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London. On March 7, 2014, the parties to the separate proceedings brought by Terra Firma in 2013 before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London consented to the service by plaintiffs of an Amended Claim Form incorporating the claims that would have proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in July 2014 had the New York action not been dismissed. The Amended Claim Form was served on March 10, 2014, and discovery is ongoing. A trial is scheduled to begin in 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim number Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd. & Ors v Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. & Ors (2014 Folio 267). Tribune Company Bankruptcy Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants in adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 cases of Tribune Company (Tribune) filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, asserting claims arising out of the approximately $11 billion leveraged buyout of Tribune in 2007. On August 2, 2013, the Litigation Trustee, as successor plaintiff to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, filed a fifth amended complaint in the adversary proceeding KIRSCHNER v. FITZSIMONS, ET AL. The complaint seeks to avoid and recover as actual fraudulent transfers the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout. Several Citigroup affiliates are named as “Shareholder Defendants” and are alleged to have tendered Tribune stock to Tribune as a part of the buyout. Several Citigroup affiliates are named as defendants in certain actions brought by Tribune noteholders, also seeking to recover the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout, as alleged state-law constructive fraudulent conveyances. Finally, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) has been named in a separate action as a defendant in connection with its role as advisor to Tribune. A motion to dismiss the claim against the Shareholder Defendants in the FITZSIMONS action is pending. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed, and an appeal to the Second Circuit is pending. A motion to dismiss the action against CGMI in its role as advisor to Tribune is pending. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08-13141 (Bankr. D. Del.) (Carey, J.), 11 MD 02296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.), 12 MC 2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.), and 13-3992 (2d Cir.). Credit Default Swaps Matters In April 2011, the European Commission (EC) opened an investigation (Case No COMP/39.745) into the credit default swap (CDS) industry. The scope of the investigation initially concerned the question of “whether 16 investment banks and Markit, the leading provider of financial information in the CDS market, have colluded and/or may hold and abuse a dominant position in order to control the financial information on CDS.” On July 2, 2013, the EC issued to Citigroup, CGMI, Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., Citicorp North America Inc., and Citibank, N.A., as well as Markit, ISDA, and 12 other investment bank dealer groups, a Statement of Objections alleging that Citigroup and the other dealers colluded to prevent exchanges from entering the credit derivatives business in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Statement of Objections sets forth the EC’s preliminary conclusions, does not prejudge the final outcome of the case, and does not benefit from the review and consideration of Citigroup’s arguments and defenses. Citigroup filed a Reply to the Statement of Objections on January 23, 2014, and made oral submissions to the EC on May 14, 2014. In July 2009 and September 2011, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) on Citigroup concerning potential anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry. Citigroup has responded to the CIDs and is cooperating with the investigation. In addition, putative class action complaints have been filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A., among other defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry and asserting various claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as a state law claim for unjust enrichment. On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these putative class actions and ordered that those actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote. On September 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and certain claims for damages, but permitting the case to proceed as to plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 MD 2476 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.). Foreign Exchange Matters Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including the Antitrust Division and the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the U.K. Serious Fraud Office, the Swiss Competition Commission, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s foreign exchange business. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries. On November 12, 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced settlements with Citibank, N.A. resolving their foreign exchange investigations. Citibank, N.A. was among five banks settling the CFTC’s and the FCA’s investigations and among three banks settling the OCC’s investigation. As part of the settlements, Citibank, N.A. agreed to pay penalties of approximately $358 million to the FCA, $350 million to the OCC, and $310 million to the CFTC and to enhance further the control framework governing its foreign exchange business. Antitrust and Other Litigation: Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., are named as defendants in putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended complaint. Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and Citibank Korea Inc., as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. (SIMMTECH) that was proceeding before the same court. The plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of persons who traded foreign currency with the defendants in Korea, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserted federal and state antitrust claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additionally, Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. (LARSEN), that was proceeding before the same court. Plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency with defendants, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of defendants’ alleged WMR manipulation. Plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved to dismiss all of these actions. On January 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order denying the motion as to the IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION plaintiffs, but dismissing the claims of the SIMMTECH and LARSEN plaintiffs in their entirety on the grounds that their federal claims were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act and their state claims had an insufficient nexus to New York. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789, 13 Civ. 7953, and 14 Civ. 1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). Additionally, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class action captioned TAYLOR v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges, alleging that the putative class was harmed as a result of the defendants’ manipulation of the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and federal antitrust claims. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-1350 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice, the CFTC, and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the Swiss Competition Commission, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates. As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and is responding to the requests. Antitrust and Other Litigation: Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL). Following motion practice, consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) OTC purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Individual actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities also were consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief. Additional actions have been consolidated in the MDL proceeding, including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-linked financial products; and, (ii) lawsuits filed by putative classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage borrowers. The plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law and seek compensatory and other damages. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 12 Civ. 4205; 12 Civ. 5723; 12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056; 12 Civ. 6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ. 346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13 Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13 Civ. 2262, 13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018; 13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146 (Buchwald, J.); 12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 12 Civ. 10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.); 13 Civ. 62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.); 13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 13 Civ. 122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ. 334, 13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J); 13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 13 Civ. 1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.); 13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D. Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ. 4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); and 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to the Second Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiffs had a right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for consideration of the plaintiffs’ appeal on the merits. Additional information concerning this appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and 13-1174 (U.S.). Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other USD LIBOR panel banks, also are named as defendants in an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 13, 2013, captioned 7 WEST 57^th STREET REALTY CO. v. CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant panel banks manipulated USD LIBOR to keep it artificially high and that this manipulation affected the value of plaintiffs’ OTC municipal bond portfolio in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and federal RICO law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, and declaratory relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 981 (Gardephe, J.). Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned LAYDON v. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. against defendant banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of those banks, including Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. The plaintiff asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including treble damages under certain statutes, as well as costs and expenses. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 the federal RICO law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 11, 2014, the court granted the Department of Justice’s motion to stay discovery for eight months, until May 12, 2015. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). Interchange Fees Litigation Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa’s and MasterCard’s respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard’s initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules. A number of objectors have noticed an appeal from the final class settlement approval order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.). Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have requested exclusion from the class settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. Two of these 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. On December 5, 2014, the Interchange MDL, including the opt out cases, was transferred from Judge Gleeson to Judge Brodie. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.); 13-cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.), and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist. Ct.). ISDAFIX-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice and the CFTC, are conducting investigations or making inquiries concerning submissions for the global benchmark for fixed interest rate swaps (ISDAFIX) and trading in products that reference ISDAFIX. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries. Antitrust and Other Litigation. Beginning in September 2014, various plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup and other U.S. dollar (USD) ISDAFIX panel banks, which are proceeding on a consolidated basis. On February 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants colluded to manipulate ISDAFIX, thereby causing the putative class to suffer losses in connection with USD interest rate derivatives purchased from the defendants. Plaintiffs assert federal and various common law claims and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 14 Civ. 7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.). Money Laundering Inquiries Citigroup and Related Parties, including Citigroup’s indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary Banamex USA (BUSA), a California state-chartered bank, have received grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts concerning, among other issues, policies, procedures and activities related to compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements under applicable federal laws and banking regulations. Banamex USA also has received a subpoena from the FDIC related to its BSA and AML compliance program. Citigroup and BUSA also have received inquiries and requests for information from other regulators, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the California Department of Business Oversight, concerning BSA- and AML-related issues. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters On February 28, 2014, Citigroup announced that it was adjusting downward its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2013 and full year 2013 by $235 million after tax ($360 million pretax) as a result of a fraud discovered in a Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) supplier program involving Oceanografía SA de CV (OSA), a Mexican oil services company and a key supplier to Pemex. During the first quarter of 2014, Citigroup incurred approximately $165 million of incremental credit costs related to the Pemex supplier program. The vast majority of the credit costs were associated with Citigroup’s $33 million of direct exposure to OSA as of December 31, 2013 and uncertainty about Pemex’s obligation to pay Citigroup for a portion of the accounts receivable Citigroup validated with Pemex as of year-end 2013 (approximately $113 million). The remaining incremental credit costs were associated with an additional supplier to Pemex within the Pemex supplier program that was found to have similar issues. In the United States, the SEC has commenced a formal investigation and the Department of Justice has requested information regarding Banamex’s dealings with OSA. Citigroup continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries. In Mexico, the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) conducted an in situ extraordinary review of the facts and circumstances of the fraud. As a result of its review, the CNBV issued a corrective action order that must be implemented by Banamex and imposed a fine of approximately $2.2 million. The CNBV continues to review Banamex’s compliance with the corrective action order. In addition, the CNBV has initiated a formal process to impose additional fines on Banamex with respect to the manner in which OSA’s debt was recorded by Banamex. Citigroup continues to cooperate fully with all of the inquiries related to the OSA fraud. Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: Beginning in April 2014, Citigroup has been named as a defendant in two complaints filed by its stockholders seeking to inspect Citigroup’s books and records pursuant to Section 220 of Chapter 8 of the Delaware Corporations Law with regard to various matters, including the OSA fraud. On September 30, 2014, in the action brought by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, the Master of the Court of Chancery issued a final report recommending that the court enter an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request for inspection. On October 7, 2014, Citigroup filed a notice of exception to the final report. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers C.A. No. 9587-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M.) and C.A. No. 10468-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M). Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters On July 29, 2004, Dr. Enrico Bondi, the Extraordinary Commissioner appointed under Italian law to oversee the administration of various Parmalat companies, filed a complaint in New Jersey state court against Citigroup and Related Parties alleging, among other things, that the defendants “facilitated” a number of frauds by Parmalat insiders. On October 20, 2008, following trial, a jury rendered a verdict in Citigroup’s favor on Parmalat’s claims and in favor of Citibank, N.A. on three counterclaims. Parmalat has exhausted all appeals, and the judgment is now final. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number A-2654-08T2 (N.J. Sup. Ct.). Following the jury verdict awarding $431 million in damages on Citigroup’s counterclaim, Citigroup has taken steps to enforce that judgment in the Italian Courts. On August 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal of Bologna affirmed the decision in the full amount of $431 million, to be paid in Parmalat shares. The judgment is subject to appeal by Parmalat. Prosecutors in Parma and Milan, Italy, have commenced criminal proceedings against certain current and former Citigroup employees (along with numerous other investment banks and certain of their current and former employees, as well as former Parmalat officers and accountants). In the event of an adverse judgment against the individuals in question, the authorities could seek administrative remedies against Citigroup. On April 18, 2011, the Milan criminal court acquitted the sole Citigroup defendant of market-rigging charges. The Milan prosecutors have appealed part of that judgment and seek administrative remedies against Citigroup, which may include disgorgement of 70 million Euro and a fine of 900,000 Euro. On April 4, 2013, the Italian Supreme Court granted the appeal of the Milan Public Prosecutors and referred the matter to the Milan Court of Appeal for further proceedings concerning the administrative liability, if any, of Citigroup. Additionally, the Parmalat administrator filed a purported civil complaint against Citigroup in the context of the Parma criminal proceedings, which seeks 14 billion Euro in damages. The trial in the Parma criminal proceedings is ongoing. Judgment is expected during the summer of 2015. In January 2011, certain Parmalat institutional investors filed a civil complaint seeking damages of approximately 130 million Euro against Citigroup and other financial institutions. Regulatory Review of Consumer “Add-On” Products Certain of Citi’s consumer businesses, including its Citi-branded and retail services cards businesses, offer or have in the past offered or participated in the marketing, distribution, or servicing of products, such as payment protection and identity monitoring, that are ancillary to the provision of credit to the consumer (add-on products). These add-on products have been the subject of enforcement actions against other institutions by regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the OCC, and the FDIC, that have resulted in orders to pay restitution to customers and penalties in substantial amounts. Citi has made restitution to certain customers in connection with certain add-on products. In light of the current regulatory focus on add-on products and the actions regulators have taken in relation to other credit card issuers, one or more regulators may order that Citi pay additional restitution to customers and/or impose penalties or other relief arising from Citi’s marketing, distribution, or servicing of add-on products. Allied Irish Bank Litigation In 2003, Allied Irish Bank (AIB) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to hold Citibank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A., former prime brokers for AIB’s subsidiary Allfirst Bank (Allfirst), liable for losses incurred by Allfirst as a result of fraudulent and fictitious foreign currency trades entered into by one of Allfirst’s traders. AIB seeks compensatory damages of approximately $500 million, plus punitive damages, from Citibank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. collectively. In 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In 2009, AIB filed an amended complaint. In 2012, the parties completed discovery and the court granted Citibank, N.A.’s motion to strike AIB’s demand for a jury trial. Citibank, N.A. also filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. AIB has announced a settlement with Bank of America, N.A. for an undisclosed amount, leaving Citibank, N.A. as the sole remaining defendant. Additional information concerning this matter is publicly available in court filings under docket number 03 Civ. 3748 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.). Settlement Payments Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.

CONTINGENCIES

Accounting and Disclosure Framework

ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation and regulatory matters. ASC 450 defines a “loss contingency” as “an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur.” It imposes different requirements for the recognition and disclosure of loss contingencies based on the likelihood of occurrence of the contingent future event or events. It distinguishes among degrees of likelihood using the following three terms: “probable,” meaning that “the future event or events are likely to occur”; “remote,” meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight”; and “reasonably possible,” meaning that “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely.” These three terms are used below as defined in ASC 450.

Accruals. ASC 450 requires accrual for a loss contingency when it is “probable that one or more future events will occur confirming the fact of loss” and “the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.” 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. When the reasonable estimate of the loss is within a range of amounts, the minimum amount of the range is accrued, unless some higher amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range. 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.

Disclosure. ASC 450 requires disclosure of a loss contingency if “there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss may have been incurred” and there is no accrual for the loss because the conditions described above are not met or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In accordance with ASC 450, if Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because Citigroup believes that a loss is reasonably possible but not probable, or that a loss is probable but not reasonably estimable, and the matter thus does not meet the criteria for accrual, and the reasonably possible loss is material, it discloses the loss contingency. In addition, Citigroup discloses matters for which it has accrued if it believes a reasonably possible exposure to material loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup’s disclosure includes an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. ASC 450 does not require disclosure of an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss where an estimate cannot be made. Neither accrual nor disclosure is required for losses that are deemed remote.

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

Overview. In addition to the matters described below, in the ordinary course of business, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees (for purposes of this section, sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties) routinely are named as defendants in, or as parties to, various legal actions and proceedings. Certain of these actions and proceedings assert claims or seek relief in connection with alleged violations of consumer protection, fair lending, securities, banking, antifraud, antitrust, anti-money laundering, employment and other statutory and common laws. Certain of these actual or threatened legal actions and proceedings include claims for substantial or indeterminate compensatory or punitive damages, or for injunctive relief, and in some instances seek recovery on a class-wide basis.

In the ordinary course of business, Citigroup and Related Parties also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal), certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, restitution, disgorgement, injunctions or other relief. In addition, certain affiliates and subsidiaries of Citigroup are banks, registered broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, investment advisers or other regulated entities and, in those capacities, are subject to regulation by various U.S., state and foreign securities, banking, commodity futures, consumer protection and other regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, Citigroup and such affiliates and subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities. From time to time Citigroup and Related Parties also receive grand jury subpoenas and other requests for information or assistance, formal or informal, from federal or state law enforcement agencies including, among others, various United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and other divisions of the Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to Citigroup and its customers.

Because of the global scope of Citigroup’s operations, and its presence in countries around the world, Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to litigation and governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) in multiple jurisdictions with legal and regulatory regimes that may differ substantially, and present substantially different risks, from those Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to in the United States. In some instances Citigroup and Related Parties may be involved in proceedings involving the same subject matter in multiple jurisdictions, which may result in overlapping, cumulative or inconsistent outcomes.

Citigroup seeks to resolve all litigation and regulatory matters in the manner management believes is in the best interests of Citigroup and its shareholders, and contests liability, allegations of wrongdoing and, where applicable, the

amount of damages or scope of any penalties or other relief sought as appropriate in each pending matter.

Inherent Uncertainty of the Matters Disclosed. Certain of the matters disclosed below involve claims for substantial or indeterminate damages. The claims asserted in these matters typically are broad, often spanning a multi-year period and sometimes a wide range of business activities, and the plaintiffs’ or claimants’ alleged damages frequently are not quantified or factually supported in the complaint or statement of claim. Other matters relate to regulatory investigations or proceedings, as to which there may be no objective basis for quantifying the range of potential fine, penalty, or other remedy. As a result, Citigroup is often unable to estimate the loss in such matters, even if it believes that a loss is probable or reasonably possible, until developments in the case or investigation have yielded additional information sufficient to support a quantitative assessment of the range of reasonably possible loss. Such developments may include, among other things, discovery from adverse parties or third parties, rulings by the court on key issues, analysis by retained experts, and engagement in settlement negotiations. Depending on a range of factors, such as the complexity of the facts, the novelty of the legal theories, the pace of discovery, the court’s scheduling order, the timing of court decisions, and the adverse party’s willingness to negotiate in good faith toward a resolution, it may be months or years after the filing of a case or commencement of an investigation before an estimate of the range of reasonably possible loss can be made.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made. For some of the matters disclosed below, Citigroup is currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued (if any). For some of the matters included within this estimation, an accrual has been made because a loss is believed to be both probable and reasonably estimable, but an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, although estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable; in these cases the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2014, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss in future periods for these matters ranges up to approximately $4 billion in the aggregate.

These estimates are based on currently available information. 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 disclosures 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, (i) Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; (ii) 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 (iii) 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 estimate 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.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made. For other matters disclosed below, Citigroup is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. Many of these matters remain in very preliminary stages (even in some cases where a substantial period of time has passed since the commencement of the matter), with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court or tribunal defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. In many of these matters, Citigroup has not yet answered the complaint or statement of claim or asserted its defenses, nor has it engaged in any negotiations with the adverse party (whether a regulator or a private party). For all these reasons, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters.

Opinion of Management as to Eventual Outcome. 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.

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, with the agreements providing that the counterparty would repurchase the inventory at a specified date in the future (typically three to six months). Pursuant to the agreements, the counterparty is responsible for providing clean title to the inventory, insuring it, and attesting that there are no third party encumbrances. The counterparty is a non-Chinese subsidiary of a large multinational corporation, and the counterparty’s obligations under the contracts are guaranteed by the parent company.

On July 22, 2014, Citigroup commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce its rights against the 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. In early December 2014, the English court conducted a preliminary trial concerning, among other issues, the question of whether Citigroup appropriately accelerated its counterparty’s obligation to repay Citigroup under the applicable agreements given these facts and circumstances. The court has not yet issued a ruling following trial.

The financings at issue are carried at fair value. As with any position carried at fair value, Citigroup adjusts the positions and records a gain or loss in the Consolidated Statements of Income in accordance with GAAP.

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit crisis that began in 2007. Such matters include, among other types of proceedings, claims asserted by: (i) individual investors and purported classes of investors in securities issued by Citigroup alleging violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) investors in securities and other investments underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including securities issued by other public companies, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), auction rate securities (ARS), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis.

In addition to these matters, Citigroup continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests for information from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FINRA, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice and subdivisions thereof, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bank regulators, and other government agencies and authorities, in connection with various formal and informal (and, in many instances, industry-wide) inquiries concerning Citigroup’s mortgage-related conduct and business activities, as well as other business activities affected by the credit crisis. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup’s sponsorship, packaging, issuance, marketing, trading, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS, its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and foreclosure of residential mortgages, and its origination, servicing, and securitization of auto loans.

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Securities Actions: Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a variety of putative class actions and individual actions arising out of Citigroup’s exposure to CDOs and other assets that declined in value during the financial crisis. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. These actions assert a wide range of claims, including claims under the federal securities laws, foreign securities laws, ERISA, and state law. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 10 Civ. 9646 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 11 Civ. 7672 (S.D.N.Y.) (Koeltl, J.), 12 Civ. 6653 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 13-4488, 13-4504, 14-2545, and 14-3014 (2d Cir.).

Beginning in November 2007, certain Citigroup affiliates also have been named as defendants arising out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions brought by investors in securities issued by public companies adversely affected by the credit crisis. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. As a general matter, issuers indemnify underwriters in connection with such claims, but in certain of these matters Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the financial condition of the issuer.

Regulatory Actions: On July 14, 2014, Citigroup reached a settlement of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group’s investigation. 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 CDOs issued, structured, or underwritten by Citigroup between 2003 and 2008. It 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: Beginning in July 2010, Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in complaints filed by purchasers of MBS and CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup. The complaints generally assert that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions about the credit quality of the assets underlying the securities or the manner in which those assets were selected, and typically assert claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, state blue sky laws, and/or common-law misrepresentation-based causes of action.

The majority of these matters have been resolved through settlement or otherwise. As of December 31, 2014, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigations was approximately $4.9 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation was approximately $1.4 billion. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.), 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.), 653990/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.), and CL 14-399 (Vir. Cir. Ct.) (Hughes, J.).

Mortgage-Backed Security Repurchase Claims: Various parties to MBS securitizations and other interested parties have asserted that certain Citigroup affiliates breached representations and warranties made in connection with mortgage loans sold into securitization trusts (private-label securitizations). Typically, these claims are based on allegations that securitized mortgages were not underwritten in accordance with the applicable underwriting standards. Citigroup also has received numerous inquiries, demands for loan files, and requests to toll (extend) the applicable statutes of limitation for representation and warranty claims relating to its private-label securitizations. These inquiries, demands and requests have been made by trustees of securitization trusts and others.

On April 7, 2014, Citigroup entered into an agreement with 18 institutional investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP regarding the resolution of representation and warranty repurchase claims related to certain legacy securitizations. Pursuant to the agreement, Citigroup made a binding offer to the trustees of 68 Citigroup-sponsored mortgage securitization trusts to pay $1.125 billion to the trusts to resolve these claims, plus certain fees and expenses. The 68 trusts covered by the agreement represent all of the trusts established by Citigroup’s legacy Securities and Banking business during 2005-2008 for which Citigroup affiliates made representations and warranties to the trusts.

On December 19, 2014, Citigroup, the 18 institutional investors, and the trustees for these securitizations executed a revised settlement agreement resolving a substantial majority of the claims contemplated by the April 7, 2014 offer of settlement. On December 31, 2014, the trustees amended the settlement agreement to accept the offer as to certain additional claims. As of December 31, 2014, the trustees have accepted the settlement for 64 trusts in whole, and the trustees have accepted in part and excluded in part four trusts from the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the trustees’ acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding, which was initiated by the trustees on December 21, 2014. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653902/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.).

To date, trustees have filed six actions against Citigroup seeking to enforce certain of these contractual repurchase claims in connection with four private-label securitizations. Each of the six actions is in the early stages of proceedings. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims as to approximately 6,700 loans that were securitized into these four securitizations, as well as any other loans that are later found to have breached representations and warranties. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 2843 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 13 Civ. 6989 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), 653816/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Kornreich, J.), and 653930/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

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 State 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. This action was withdrawn without prejudice, effective December 17, 2014. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 651868/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.). On November 24, 2014, largely the same group of investors filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. V. CITIBANK, N.A., alleging similar claims relating to 27 MBS trusts sponsored by UBS, Lehman Brothers, American Home Mortgage, Goldman Sachs, Country Place, PHH Mortgage, Wachovia and Washington Mutual. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-cv-9373 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, 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 alleges that Citibank, N.A., as trustee for an unspecified number of MBS, failed to pursue remedies on behalf of the trusts. This action was withdrawn without prejudice on November 10, 2014. 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

In 2010, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) commenced an arbitration (ADIA I) against Citigroup and Related Parties before the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), alleging statutory and common law claims in connection with its $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup in December 2007. ADIA sought rescission of the investment agreement or, in the alternative, more than $4 billion in damages. Following a hearing in May 2011 and post-hearing proceedings, on October 14, 2011, the arbitration panel issued a final award and statement of reasons finding in favor of Citigroup on all claims asserted by ADIA. On March 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied ADIA’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Citigroup’s cross-petition to confirm. ADIA appealed and, on February 19, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. ADIA filed a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2014. 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 13-1500 (U.S.).

On August 20, 2013, ADIA commenced a second arbitration (ADIA II) against Citigroup before the ICDR, alleging common law claims arising out of the same investment at issue in ADIA I. On August 28, 2013, Citigroup filed a complaint against ADIA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin ADIA II on the ground that it is barred by the court’s judgment confirming the arbitral award in ADIA I. On September 23, 2013, ADIA filed motions to dismiss Citigroup’s complaint and to compel arbitration. On November 25, 2013, the court denied Citigroup’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted ADIA’s motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration. On December 23, 2013, Citigroup appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On January 14, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 6073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.) and 13-4825 (2d Cir.).

Alternative Investment Fund-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Since mid-2008, the SEC has been investigating the management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon funds, alternative investment funds managed and marketed by certain Citigroup affiliates that suffered substantial losses during the credit crisis. In addition to the SEC inquiry, on June 11, 2012, the New York Attorney General served a subpoena on a Citigroup affiliate seeking documents and information concerning certain of these funds, and, on August 1, 2012, the Massachusetts Attorney General served a Civil Investigative Demand on a Citigroup affiliate seeking similar documents and information. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. Citigroup has entered into tolling agreements with the SEC and the New York Attorney General concerning certain claims related to the investigations.

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2012 on behalf of investors in CSO Ltd., CSO US Ltd., and Corporate Special Opportunities Ltd., whose investments were managed indirectly by a Citigroup affiliate. Plaintiffs assert a variety of state common law claims, alleging that they and other investors were misled into investing in the funds and, later, not redeeming their investments. The complaint seeks to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

Auction Rate Securities-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in numerous actions and proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and purchasers or issuers of ARS and an issuer of variable rate demand obligations, asserting federal and state law claims arising from the collapse of the market in 2008, which plaintiffs contend Citigroup and other ARS underwriters and broker-dealers foresaw or should have foreseen, but failed adequately to disclose. Many of these matters have been dismissed or settled. Most of the remaining matters are in arbitrations pending before FINRA.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings

Beginning in September 2010, Citigroup and Related Parties have been named as defendants in various adversary proceedings and claim objections in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) and the liquidation proceedings of Lehman Brothers Inc. (LBI) and Lehman Brothers Finance AG, a/k/a Lehman Brothers Finance SA (LBF). Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08-13555, 08-01420, and 09-10583 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.).

On February 8, 2012, Citibank, N.A. and certain Citigroup affiliates were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding asserting objections to proofs of claim totaling approximately $2.6 billion filed by Citibank, N.A. and those affiliates, and claims under federal bankruptcy and state law to recover $2 billion deposited by LBHI with Citibank, N.A. against which Citibank, N.A. asserts a right of setoff. Plaintiffs also seek avoidance of a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank, N.A. and other relief. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 16, 2012, January 29, 2014, and December 9, 2014, asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims. Discovery is ongoing. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12-01044 and 08-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.).

On July 21, 2014, an adversary proceeding was filed against Citibank, N.A., Citibank Korea Inc., and Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., asserting that defendants improperly have withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. An amended complaint was filed on August 6, 2014, and defendants filed an answer on October 6, 2014. Plaintiffs seek to recover approximately $70 million, plus interest. Discovery is ongoing. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09-10583 and 14-02050 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.).

Terra Firma Litigation

In December 2009, the general partners of two related private equity funds filed a complaint in New York state court, subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting multi-billion-dollar fraud and other common law claims against certain Citigroup affiliates arising out of the May 2007 auction of the music company EMI, in which Citigroup acted as advisor to EMI and as a lender to plaintiffs’ acquisition vehicle. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Citigroup on November 4, 2010. Plaintiffs appealed from the entry of the judgment. On May 31, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the November 2010 jury verdict in favor of Citigroup and ordered that the case be retried. On March 7, 2014, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of all remaining claims in the action, without prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to re-file those claims in England. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 10459 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.) and 11-0126-cv (2d Cir.).

In August and September 2013, plaintiffs in the New York proceedings, together with their affiliates and principal, filed fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims arising out of the EMI auction in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court in Manchester, England, against certain Citigroup affiliates. The cases have since been transferred to the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London. On March 7, 2014, the parties to the separate proceedings brought by Terra Firma in 2013 before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London consented to the service by plaintiffs of an Amended Claim Form incorporating the claims that would have proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in July 2014 had the New York action not been dismissed. The Amended Claim Form was served on March 10, 2014, and discovery is ongoing. A trial is scheduled to begin in 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim number Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd. & Ors v Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. & Ors (2014 Folio 267).

Tribune Company Bankruptcy

Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants in adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 cases of Tribune Company (Tribune) filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, asserting claims arising out of the approximately $11 billion leveraged buyout of Tribune in 2007. On August 2, 2013, the Litigation Trustee, as successor plaintiff to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, filed a fifth amended complaint in the adversary proceeding KIRSCHNER v. FITZSIMONS, ET AL. The complaint seeks to avoid and recover as actual fraudulent transfers the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout. Several Citigroup affiliates are named as “Shareholder Defendants” and are alleged to have tendered Tribune stock to Tribune as a part of the buyout.

Several Citigroup affiliates are named as defendants in certain actions brought by Tribune noteholders, also seeking to recover the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout, as alleged state-law constructive fraudulent conveyances. Finally, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) has been named in a separate action as a defendant in connection with its role as advisor to Tribune. A motion to dismiss the claim against the Shareholder Defendants in the FITZSIMONS action is pending. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed, and an appeal to the Second Circuit is pending. A motion to dismiss the action against CGMI in its role as advisor to Tribune is pending. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 08-13141 (Bankr. D. Del.) (Carey, J.), 11 MD 02296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.), 12 MC 2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.), and 13-3992 (2d Cir.).

Credit Default Swaps Matters

In April 2011, the European Commission (EC) opened an investigation (Case No COMP/39.745) into the credit default swap (CDS) industry. The scope of the investigation initially concerned the question of “whether 16 investment banks and Markit, the leading provider of financial information in the CDS market, have colluded and/or may hold and abuse a dominant position in order to control the financial information on CDS.” On July 2, 2013, the EC issued to Citigroup, CGMI, Citigroup Global Markets Ltd., Citicorp North America Inc., and Citibank, N.A., as well as Markit, ISDA, and 12 other investment bank dealer groups, a Statement of Objections alleging that Citigroup and the other dealers colluded to prevent exchanges from entering the credit derivatives business in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Statement of Objections sets forth the EC’s preliminary conclusions, does not prejudge the final outcome of the case, and does not benefit from the review and consideration of Citigroup’s arguments and defenses. Citigroup filed a Reply to the Statement of Objections on January 23, 2014, and made oral submissions to the EC on May 14, 2014.

In July 2009 and September 2011, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) on Citigroup concerning potential anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry. Citigroup has responded to the CIDs and is cooperating with the investigation.

In addition, putative class action complaints have been filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, N.A., among other defendants, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry and asserting various claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as a state law claim for unjust enrichment. On October 16, 2013, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these putative class actions and ordered that those actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote.

On September 4, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and certain claims for damages, but permitting the case to proceed as to plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 MD 2476 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including the Antitrust Division and the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the U.K. Serious Fraud Office, the Swiss Competition Commission, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s foreign exchange business. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries.

On November 12, 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), and the Office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced settlements with Citibank, N.A. resolving their foreign exchange investigations. Citibank, N.A. was among five banks settling the CFTC’s and the FCA’s investigations and among three banks settling the OCC’s investigation. As part of the settlements, Citibank, N.A. agreed to pay penalties of approximately $358 million to the FCA, $350 million to the OCC, and $310 million to the CFTC and to enhance further the control framework governing its foreign exchange business.

Antitrust and Other Litigation: Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., are named as defendants in putative class actions that are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants colluded to manipulate the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, and Citibank Korea Inc., as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. (SIMMTECH) that was proceeding before the same court. The plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of persons who traded foreign currency with the defendants in Korea, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserted federal and state antitrust claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Additionally, Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative class action captioned LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. (LARSEN), that was proceeding before the same court. Plaintiff sought to represent a putative class of persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency with defendants, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of defendants’ alleged WMR manipulation. Plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved to dismiss all of these actions. On January 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order denying the motion as to the IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION plaintiffs, but dismissing the claims of the SIMMTECH and LARSEN plaintiffs in their entirety on the grounds that their federal claims were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act and their state claims had an insufficient nexus to New York. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789, 13 Civ. 7953, and 14 Civ. 1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Additionally, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class action captioned TAYLOR v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges, alleging that the putative class was harmed as a result of the defendants’ manipulation of the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and federal antitrust claims. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-1350 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice, the CFTC, and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the Swiss Competition Commission, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank offered rates and other benchmark rates. As members of a number of such panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received requests for information and documents. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries and is responding to the requests.

Antitrust and Other Litigation: Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL). Following motion practice, consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) OTC purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Individual actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities also were consolidated into the MDL proceeding. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.

Additional actions have been consolidated in the MDL proceeding, including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-linked financial products; and, (ii) lawsuits filed by putative classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage borrowers. The plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law and seek compensatory and other damages.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 12 Civ. 4205; 12 Civ. 5723; 12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056; 12 Civ. 6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ. 346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13 Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13 Civ. 2262, 13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018; 13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146 (Buchwald, J.); 12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 12 Civ. 10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.); 13 Civ. 62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.); 13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 13 Civ. 122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ. 334, 13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J); 13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 13 Civ. 1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.); 13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D. Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ. 4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); and 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, 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 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt securities. On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to the Second Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiffs had a right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for consideration of the plaintiffs’ appeal on the merits. Additional information concerning this appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and 13-1174 (U.S.).

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other USD LIBOR panel banks, also are named as defendants in an individual action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on February 13, 2013, captioned 7 WEST 57^th STREET REALTY CO. v. CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant panel banks manipulated USD LIBOR to keep it artificially high and that this manipulation affected the value of plaintiffs’ OTC municipal bond portfolio in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and federal RICO law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, and declaratory relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 981 (Gardephe, J.).

Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned LAYDON v. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. against defendant banks that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of those banks, including Citigroup, Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc. The plaintiff asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including treble damages under certain statutes, as well as costs and expenses. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

On May 2, 2014, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 the federal RICO law, and for unjust enrichment. On September 11, 2014, the court granted the Department of Justice’s motion to stay discovery for eight months, until May 12, 2015. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

Interchange Fees Litigation

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding before Judge Gleeson in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa’s and MasterCard’s respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard’s initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules. A number of objectors have noticed an appeal from the final class settlement approval order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.).

Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have requested exclusion from the class settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. Two of these 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. On December 5, 2014, the Interchange MDL, including the opt out cases, was transferred from Judge Gleeson to Judge Brodie. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.); 13-cv-4442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.), and 13-10-75377A (Tex. Dist. Ct.).

ISDAFIX-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government agencies in the U.S., including the Department of Justice and the CFTC, are conducting investigations or making inquiries concerning submissions for the global benchmark for fixed interest rate swaps (ISDAFIX) and trading in products that reference ISDAFIX. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries.

Antitrust and Other Litigation. Beginning in September 2014, various plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup and other U.S. dollar (USD) ISDAFIX panel banks, which are proceeding on a consolidated basis. On February 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants colluded to manipulate ISDAFIX, thereby causing the putative class to suffer losses in connection with USD interest rate derivatives purchased from the defendants. Plaintiffs assert federal and various common law claims and seek compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 14 Civ. 7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).

Money Laundering Inquiries

Citigroup and Related Parties, including Citigroup’s indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary Banamex USA (BUSA), a California state-chartered bank, have received grand jury subpoenas issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts concerning, among other issues, policies, procedures and activities related to compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements under applicable federal laws and banking regulations. Banamex USA also has received a subpoena from the FDIC related to its BSA and AML compliance program. Citigroup and BUSA also have received inquiries and requests for information from other regulators, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the California Department of Business Oversight, concerning BSA- and AML-related issues. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries.

Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters

On February 28, 2014, Citigroup announced that it was adjusting downward its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2013 and full year 2013 by $235 million after tax ($360 million pretax) as a result of a fraud discovered in a Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) supplier program involving Oceanografía SA de CV (OSA), a Mexican oil services company and a key supplier to Pemex. During the first quarter of 2014, Citigroup incurred approximately $165 million of incremental credit costs related to the Pemex supplier program. The vast majority of the credit costs were associated with Citigroup’s $33 million of direct exposure to OSA as of December 31, 2013 and uncertainty about Pemex’s obligation to pay Citigroup for a portion of the accounts receivable Citigroup validated with Pemex as of year-end 2013 (approximately $113 million). The remaining incremental credit costs were associated with an additional supplier to Pemex within the Pemex supplier program that was found to have similar issues.

In the United States, the SEC has commenced a formal investigation and the Department of Justice has requested information regarding Banamex’s dealings with OSA. Citigroup continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries.

In Mexico, the Mexican National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV) conducted an in situ extraordinary review of the facts and circumstances of the fraud. As a result of its review, the CNBV issued a corrective action order that must be implemented by Banamex and imposed a fine of approximately $2.2 million. The CNBV continues to review Banamex’s compliance with the corrective action order. In addition, the CNBV has initiated a formal process to impose additional fines on Banamex with respect to the manner in which OSA’s debt was recorded by Banamex. Citigroup continues to cooperate fully with all of the inquiries related to the OSA fraud.

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: Beginning in April 2014, Citigroup has been named as a defendant in two complaints filed by its stockholders seeking to inspect Citigroup’s books and records pursuant to Section 220 of Chapter 8 of the Delaware Corporations Law with regard to various matters, including the OSA fraud. On September 30, 2014, in the action brought by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, the Master of the Court of Chancery issued a final report recommending that the court enter an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request for inspection. On October 7, 2014, Citigroup filed a notice of exception to the final report. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers C.A. No. 9587-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M.) and C.A. No. 10468-ML (Del. Ch.) (LeGrow, M).

Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters

On July 29, 2004, Dr. Enrico Bondi, the Extraordinary Commissioner appointed under Italian law to oversee the administration of various Parmalat companies, filed a complaint in New Jersey state court against Citigroup and Related Parties alleging, among other things, that the defendants “facilitated” a number of frauds by Parmalat insiders. On October 20, 2008, following trial, a jury rendered a verdict in Citigroup’s favor on Parmalat’s claims and in favor of Citibank, N.A. on three counterclaims. Parmalat has exhausted all appeals, and the judgment is now final. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number A-2654-08T2 (N.J. Sup. Ct.). Following the jury verdict awarding $431 million in damages on Citigroup’s counterclaim, Citigroup has taken steps to enforce that judgment in the Italian Courts. On August 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal of Bologna affirmed the decision in the full amount of $431 million, to be paid in Parmalat shares. The judgment is subject to appeal by Parmalat.

Prosecutors in Parma and Milan, Italy, have commenced criminal proceedings against certain current and former Citigroup employees (along with numerous other investment banks and certain of their current and former employees, as well as former Parmalat officers and accountants). In the event of an adverse judgment against the individuals in question, the authorities could seek administrative remedies against Citigroup. On April 18, 2011, the Milan criminal court acquitted the sole Citigroup defendant of market-rigging charges. The Milan prosecutors have appealed part of that judgment and seek administrative remedies against Citigroup, which may include disgorgement of 70 million Euro and a fine of 900,000 Euro. On April 4, 2013, the Italian Supreme Court granted the appeal of the Milan Public Prosecutors and referred the matter to the Milan Court of Appeal for further proceedings concerning the administrative liability, if any, of Citigroup. Additionally, the Parmalat administrator filed a purported civil complaint against Citigroup in the context of the Parma criminal proceedings, which seeks 14 billion Euro in damages. The trial in the Parma criminal proceedings is ongoing. Judgment is expected during the summer of 2015. In January 2011, certain Parmalat institutional investors filed a civil complaint seeking damages of approximately 130 million Euro against Citigroup and other financial institutions.

Regulatory Review of Consumer “Add-On” Products

Certain of Citi’s consumer businesses, including its Citi-branded and retail services cards businesses, offer or have in the past offered or participated in the marketing, distribution, or servicing of products, such as payment protection and identity monitoring, that are ancillary to the provision of credit to the consumer (add-on products). These add-on products have been the subject of enforcement actions against other institutions by regulators, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the OCC, and the FDIC, that have resulted in orders to pay restitution to customers and penalties in substantial amounts. Citi has made restitution to certain customers in connection with certain add-on products. In light of the current regulatory focus on add-on products and the actions regulators have taken in relation to other credit card issuers, one or more regulators may order that Citi pay additional restitution to customers and/or impose penalties or other relief arising from Citi’s marketing, distribution, or servicing of add-on products.

Allied Irish Bank Litigation

In 2003, Allied Irish Bank (AIB) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to hold Citibank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A., former prime brokers for AIB’s subsidiary Allfirst Bank (Allfirst), liable for losses incurred by Allfirst as a result of fraudulent and fictitious foreign currency trades entered into by one of Allfirst’s traders. AIB seeks compensatory damages of approximately $500 million, plus punitive damages, from Citibank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. collectively. In 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In 2009, AIB filed an amended complaint. In 2012, the parties completed discovery and the court granted Citibank, N.A.’s motion to strike AIB’s demand for a jury trial. Citibank, N.A. also filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. AIB has announced a settlement with Bank of America, N.A. for an undisclosed amount, leaving Citibank, N.A. as the sole remaining defendant. Additional information concerning this matter is publicly available in court filings under docket number 03 Civ. 3748 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.).

Settlement Payments

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