CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties. In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup establishes accruals for contingencies, including the litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to those matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters. If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At September 30, 2015, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $4 billion at December 31, 2014, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosure involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate. Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Commodities Financing Contracts At a hearing on July 3, 2015, the English High Court Judge awarded Citigroup’s counterparty permission to appeal against one aspect of the High Court’s judgment of May 22, 2015. At a further hearing on July 24, 2015, Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (as well as their counterparty) sought permission from the English Court of Appeal to appeal against other aspects of the May judgment in respect of which the trial judge had not granted permission. Those applications remain outstanding. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference: MERCURIA ENERGY TRADING PTE LTD & ANOTHER V. CITIBANK, N.A. & ANOTHER (Claim No. 2014 Folio 709). Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions: On July 31, 2015, the court issued an order approving the stipulation and settlement previously filed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) and its remaining co-defendants in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL. v. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL. The court also ordered the case dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreement. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.). On August 17, 2015, the Citigroup defendants and other parties filed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, and the plaintiff dismissed its appeal, in COMMERZBANK AG LONDON BRANCH v. UBS AG, ET AL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). As of September 30, 2015, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending MBS and CDO investor suits is approximately $1.69 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with MBS and CDO investors threatening litigation is approximately $1.4 billion. Alternative Investment Fund-Related Litigation and Other Matters On August 17, 2015, the SEC entered an order accepting an offer of settlement from certain Citigroup affiliates concerning the SEC’s investigation into the Citigroup affiliates’ management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon alternative investment funds. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Citigroup affiliates will pay $179.6 million in disgorgement and interest, which the SEC will distribute to investors in the funds. On August 10, 2015, the parties in BEACH v. CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC entered into a settlement agreement. On August 19, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and approving notice. A final settlement hearing has been scheduled for December 17, 2015. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Woods, J.). Credit Default Swaps Matters On September 30, 2015, the defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered settlement agreements with the plaintiffs to settle all claims of the putative class, and on October 29, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlements. 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.). Treasury Auction Litigation Beginning in July 2015, CGMI, along with numerous other U.S. Treasury primary dealer banks, have been named as defendants in a number of substantially similar putative class actions involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets. The actions are based upon the defendants’ roles as registered primary dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois and the District of the Virgin Islands. On September 24, 2015, certain of the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of the actions transferred to Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Gardephe is currently presiding over the first-filed action and is actively coordinating actions in the Southern District of New York. Most of the actions filed in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated under docket number 15 Civ. 5794 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional information relating to certain of the other actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 7631 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 8149 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 0055 (D.V.I.); 15 Civ. 8417 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8634 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8859 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8890 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 9173 (N.D. Ill.). Foreign Exchange Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On September 9, 2015, defendants filed a motion to transfer the action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. ET AL. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 3:15-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.). In September 2015, putative class actions captioned BÉLAND v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. were filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange (FX) dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the FX market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into an FX instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into an FX instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189-152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.). On September 16, 2015, an action captioned NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that Citibank, N.A. engaged in conduct in connection with plaintiffs’ FX trading that caused them losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On August 4, 2015, the court in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various individual actions that were previously stayed, dismissing plaintiffs’ antitrust claims for failure to state a claim, and holding that plaintiffs cannot pursue certain other claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction or the operation of the applicable statute of limitations. The court allowed certain of plaintiffs’ claims for common law fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and tortious interference to proceed. On October 8, 2015, the City of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority amended their complaint in response to the court’s August 4, 2015 decision. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). Interchange Fees Litigation Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015. 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.). Money Laundering Inquiries Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On September 22, 2015, a derivative action captioned FIREMAN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Citigroup (as nominal defendant) against certain of its directors and officers. The plaintiffs assert claims derivatively for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with allegations concerning the compliance of Banco Nacional de Mexico, or Banamex, and Banamex USA with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7501 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.). Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters After the acquittal of a Citibank, N.A. employee in the Milan criminal court in April 2011, Milan public prosecutors have been pursuing an administrative remedy against Citibank, N.A. under Italian Administrative Law 231. The prosecutors originally sought disgorgement of profits in the amount of €70 million and a fine of €900,000. However, on February 5, 2014, the Milan Court of Appeal restricted the remedy to an administrative fine of €500,000. Citibank, N.A. appealed, but on July 2, 2015, the Italian Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, confirming the imposition of a €500,000 fine. Allied Irish Bank Litigation On August 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Citibank, N.A.’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior denial of its motion for summary judgment. On September 9, 2015, the court set the case for trial on January 25, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the 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. [End of Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements]

CONTINGENCIES

The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2015 and June 30, 2015. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties.

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

If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At September 30, 2015, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $4 billion at December 31, 2014, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

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

For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Commodities Financing Contracts

At a hearing on July 3, 2015, the English High Court Judge awarded Citigroup’s counterparty permission to appeal against one aspect of the High Court’s judgment of May 22, 2015. At a further hearing on July 24, 2015, Citibank, N.A. and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (as well as their counterparty) sought permission from the English Court of Appeal to appeal against other aspects of the May judgment in respect of which the trial judge had not granted permission. Those applications remain outstanding. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference: MERCURIA ENERGY TRADING PTE LTD & ANOTHER V. CITIBANK, N.A. & ANOTHER (Claim No. 2014 Folio 709).

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions: On July 31, 2015, the court issued an order approving the stipulation and settlement previously filed by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) and its remaining co-defendants in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL. v. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL. The court also ordered the case dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreement. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.).

On August 17, 2015, the Citigroup defendants and other parties filed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice, and the plaintiff dismissed its appeal, in COMMERZBANK AG LONDON BRANCH v. UBS AG, ET AL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 654464/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.).

As of September 30, 2015, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending MBS and CDO investor suits is approximately $1.69 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with MBS and CDO investors threatening litigation is approximately $1.4 billion.

Alternative Investment Fund-Related Litigation and Other Matters

On August 17, 2015, the SEC entered an order accepting an offer of settlement from certain Citigroup affiliates concerning the SEC’s investigation into the Citigroup affiliates’ management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon alternative investment funds. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Citigroup affiliates will pay $179.6 million in disgorgement and interest, which the SEC will distribute to investors in the funds.

On August 10, 2015, the parties in BEACH v. CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC entered into a settlement agreement. On August 19, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and approving notice. A final settlement hearing has been scheduled for December 17, 2015. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Woods, J.).

Credit Default Swaps Matters

On September 30, 2015, the defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered settlement agreements with the plaintiffs to settle all claims of the putative class, and on October 29, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlements. 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.).

Treasury Auction Litigation

Beginning in July 2015, CGMI, along with numerous other U.S. Treasury primary dealer banks, have been named as defendants in a number of substantially similar putative class actions involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets. The actions are based upon the defendants’ roles as registered primary dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under the Commodity Exchange Act. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois and the District of the Virgin Islands.

On September 24, 2015, certain of the plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of the actions transferred to Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Judge Gardephe is currently presiding over the first-filed action and is actively coordinating actions in the Southern District of New York. Most of the actions filed in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated under docket number 15 Civ. 5794 (S.D.N.Y.). Additional information relating to certain of the other actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 7631 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 8149 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 0055 (D.V.I.); 15 Civ. 8417 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8634 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8859 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8890 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 9173 (N.D. Ill.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On September 9, 2015, defendants filed a motion to transfer the action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. ET AL. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 3:15-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.).

In September 2015, putative class actions captioned BÉLAND v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. were filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange (FX) dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the FX market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into an FX instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into an FX instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189-152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.).

On September 16, 2015, an action captioned NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that Citibank, N.A. engaged in conduct in connection with plaintiffs’ FX trading that caused them losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, and seek compensatory and punitive damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On August 4, 2015, the court in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various individual actions that were previously stayed, dismissing plaintiffs’ antitrust claims for failure to state a claim, and holding that plaintiffs cannot pursue certain other claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction or the operation of the applicable statute of limitations. The court allowed certain of plaintiffs’ claims for common law fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and tortious interference to proceed. On October 8, 2015, the City of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority amended their complaint in response to the court’s August 4, 2015 decision. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

Interchange Fees Litigation

Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015. 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.).

Money Laundering Inquiries

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On September 22, 2015, a derivative action captioned FIREMAN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of Citigroup (as nominal defendant) against certain of its directors and officers. The plaintiffs assert claims derivatively for violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with allegations concerning the compliance of Banco Nacional de Mexico, or Banamex, and Banamex USA with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7501 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.).

Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters

After the acquittal of a Citibank, N.A. employee in the Milan criminal court in April 2011, Milan public prosecutors have been pursuing an administrative remedy against Citibank, N.A. under Italian Administrative Law 231. The prosecutors originally sought disgorgement of profits in the amount of €70 million and a fine of €900,000. However, on February 5, 2014, the Milan Court of Appeal restricted the remedy to an administrative fine of €500,000. Citibank, N.A. appealed, but on July 2, 2015, the Italian Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, confirming the imposition of a €500,000 fine.

Allied Irish Bank Litigation

On August 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Citibank, N.A.’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior denial of its motion for summary judgment. On September 9, 2015, the court set the case for trial on January 25, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the 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.

[End of Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements]