CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
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, 2015, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $3.5 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. 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 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. In December 2015, the remaining parties reached a settlement that released all claims against Citibank. A notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed on January 14, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number 03 Civ. 3748 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.). 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. Citibank and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) have contracts with a counterparty in relation to the provision of financing to that counterparty, 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, Citibank and CGML commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce their 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 Citibank and/or CGML had appropriately accelerated their counterparty’s obligation to repay under the applicable agreements, given these facts and circumstances. The High Court in London issued a judgment on May 22, 2015 holding that the Citigroup affiliates had properly served bring forward event notices, but that because the metal had not been properly delivered, the counterparty did not yet have to pay Citibank and CGML. As a result of various filings by the parties, on January 15, 2016, Citibank and CGML were informed by the English Court of Appeal (i) that their application for permission to appeal certain aspects of the High Court’s 2015 judgment had been granted; and (ii) that the counterparty had also been given permission to appeal certain aspects of the 2015 judgment. Various procedural matters continue. 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, Appeal Nos. 2015/2407 (Citigroup) and 2015/2395 (Mercuria) as regards the appeals. 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 on the Consolidated Statement 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 Citigroup’s common and preferred stock and debt, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) individual investors and purported classes of 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, investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. These matters have been filed in state and federal courts across the U.S. and in foreign tribunals, as well as in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and other arbitration associations. In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, 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 U.S. 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 and securitization of auto loans. Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters Securities Actions: Beginning in November 2007, Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in a variety of class and individual securities actions filed by investors in Citigroup’s equity and debt securities in state and federal courts relating to Citigroup’s disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime-related assets. 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.), 13-4488, 13-4504, and 15-2461 (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. 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, 2015, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigations was approximately $1.2 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation was approximately $500 million. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-1729-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct.) (McCoy, C.), 650212/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Kornreich, J.), and 12 Civ. 3868 (S.D.N.Y.) (Forrest, 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. The trustees accepted the settlement for 64 trusts in whole, and four in part. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the trustees’ acceptance was subject to a judicial approval proceeding. On December 18, 2015, the court filed a decision and order approving the trustees’ entry into the settlement and finding that the trustees, in entering the settlement, had exercised their authority reasonably and in good faith. Additional information concerning this proceeding 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 that were excluded from the April 7, 2014 settlement in connection with four private-label securitizations. Citigroup has reached an agreement with the trustees to resolve three of these actions, and those actions were dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2016. The remaining three actions are in various stages of discovery. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims in the remaining actions as to approximately 2,900 loans that were securitized into these three 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.), 653919/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), 653929/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), and 653930/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Mortgage-Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On June 18, 2014, a group of investors in 48 RMBS trusts for which Citibank 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 RMBS trustees, alleges that Citibank failed to pursue contractual remedies against securitization sponsors and servicers. This action was withdrawn without prejudice, effective December 17, 2014. 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 for which Citibank allegedly served or currently serves as trustee. On September 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. 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 November 24, 2015, largely the same group of investors filed another action in the New York State Supreme Court, captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M, ET AL. V. CITIBANK N.A., related to the 24 trusts dismissed from the federal court action and one additional trust, asserting claims similar to the original complaint filed in state court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.). On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for a financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK V. CITIBANK N.A. The complaint concerns one RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee, and alleges that Citibank failed to pursue contractual remedies against the sponsor and servicers of that trust. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.). Counterparty and Investor Actions In 2010, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) commenced an arbitration (ADIA I) against Citigroup 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. 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. 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 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 asserted 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 sought to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. On August 10, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement providing for a class action settlement of the litigation. The court held a final settlement hearing on December 17, 2015 and entered an order approving the settlement on January 28, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Woods, 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 auction rate securities (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 On February 8, 2012, Citibank 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 and those affiliates, and claims under federal bankruptcy and state law to recover $2 billion deposited by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) with Citibank against which Citibank asserts a right of setoff. Plaintiffs also sought avoidance of a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank and other relief; plaintiffs dismissed, with prejudice, their claim to avoid the $500 million transfer pursuant to a stipulation entered by the court on March 12, 2015. Plaintiffs filed various amended complaints asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims. Discovery related to the remaining claims 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 on behalf of Lehman Brothers Finance AG against Citibank, Citibank Korea Inc. and CGML asserting that defendants improperly have withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. An amended complaint was filed by plaintiff on August 6, 2014. Plaintiff seeks 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 14-02050 and 09-10583 (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 claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates arising out of the May 2007 auction of the music company, EMI, in which Citigroup affiliates 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 the defendants 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 claims against CGML, Citibank and Citigroup arising out of the EMI auction in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division and Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court in Manchester, England. 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 filed by Terra Firma in 2013 before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, consented to the service by plaintiffs of an amended complaint 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. A trial (which is based on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations) is scheduled to begin in London on June 7, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd. & Ors v Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. & Ors (CL-2013-000293). 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. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed, and an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is pending. A motion to dismiss the action against CGMI in its role as advisor to Tribune is pending. In the FITZSIMONS action, claims against certain Citigroup affiliates have been dismissed or reduced in amount by various orders. 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, CGML, Citicorp North America Inc. and Citibank, as well as Markit, ISDA, and 12 other investment bank dealer groups, a statement of objections alleging that Citi 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 set forth the EC’s preliminary conclusions, did not prejudge the final outcome of the case, and did not benefit from the review and consideration of Citi’s arguments and defenses. Thereafter, Citi filed a reply and made oral submissions to the EC. On December 4, 2015, the EC informed Citi that it had closed its proceeding against Citi and the other investment bank dealer groups, without further action. In July 2009 and September 2011, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) on Citi concerning potential anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry. In addition, putative class action complaints were filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, 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 in the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote. On September 30, 2015, the defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into settlement agreements 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.). Foreign Exchange Matters Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s foreign exchange business. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries. Antitrust and Other Litigation: Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank, 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 and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended complaint. Citibank, 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 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. The 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. The plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Citigroup and Citibank, 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.). Additional actions have been consolidated in the IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION proceeding, including lawsuits brought by, or on behalf of putative classes of, investors that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges. The plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act, and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On December 15, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement between the Citi defendants and classes of plaintiffs who traded foreign exchange instruments in the spot market and on exchanges. The proposed settlement provides for the Citi defendants to receive a release in exchange for a payment of $394 million (which was made on December 18, 2015) plus a separate payment of $8 million (which is due upon final approval of the settlement by the court). Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 1350; 15 Civ. 2705; 15 Civ. 4230; 15 Civ. 4436; and 15 Civ. 4926 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On May 21, 2015, an action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of “consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency exchange rates” from defendants for their end use. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2015, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, and seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 9, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for 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 numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On June 3, 2015, an action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of qualified Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans for whom a defendant provided foreign exchange transactional services or authorized or permitted foreign exchange transactional services involving a plan’s assets in connection with its exercise of authority or control regarding an ERISA plan. The plaintiff alleges violations of ERISA, and seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief. On June 29, 2015, ALLEN was consolidated with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION for discovery purposes only. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, 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 dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the foreign exchange 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, or disgorgement, on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into a foreign exchange instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into a foreign exchange 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’ foreign exchange trading that caused them losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. On November 17, 2015, Citi filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On December 7, 2015, the court granted Citi’s motion for a stay of discovery. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: In June 2015, Citigroup was named as a defendant in IRA FOR THE BENEFIT OF VICTORIA SHAEV V. CITIGROUP INC. The complaint was filed by a putative stockholder in New York Supreme Court 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 Citigroup’s participation and activity in foreign exchange markets. On January 26, 2016, the court granted Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 652339/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: The CFTC and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as government and regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, 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, 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). Consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter (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 LIBOR MDL. 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 LIBOR 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 (S.D.N.Y.) (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.); 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.); 15 Civ. 1334 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); and 15 Civ. 2973 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). 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 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the 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. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on November 13, 2015. 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, 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. On March 31, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed this action. On June 1, 2015, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 981 (Gardephe, 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 U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to stay discovery for eight months, until May 12, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on August 13, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 14, 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. On July 28, 2015, various objectors to the class settlement filed motions in the U.S. District Court to vacate the court’s prior approval of the class settlement, alleging improprieties by two of the lawyers involved in the Interchange MDL. 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.). 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. One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, names 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 MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.). ISDAFIX-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including 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. On April 13, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims in plaintiffs’ amended consolidated complaint. 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 Regulatory Actions: 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 BUSA, Citibank and related parties’ compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements under applicable federal laws and banking regulations. Citigroup and BUSA also have received inquiries and requests for information from other regulators, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, concerning BSA- and AML-related issues. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries. Citibank has received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in connection with its investigation of alleged bribery, corruption and money laundering associated with the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and the potential involvement of financial institutions in that activity. The subpoena requests information relating to, among other things, banking relationships and transactions at Citibank and its affiliates associated with certain individuals and entities identified as having had involvement with the alleged corrupt conduct. Citi is cooperating with the authorities in this matter. 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 Citigroup’s and certain of its affiliates’ present and former directors and officers. The plaintiffs asserted 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 the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise appropriate oversight and management of BSA and AML laws and regulations and related consent decrees concerning Citigroup’s subsidiaries Banco Nacional de Mexico, or Banamex, and BUSA. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs, with the permission of the court, filed an amended complaint naming additional present and former directors and officers of Citigroup affiliates as defendants. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7501 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.). Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters Regulatory Actions: As a result of Citigroup’s announcement in the first quarter of 2014 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, the SEC commenced a formal investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice requested information regarding Banamex’s dealings with OSA. The SEC inquiry has included requests for documents and witness testimony. Citi continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries. 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 April 24, 2015, in the action brought by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, the Court of Chancery issued a decision adopting the Master in Chancery’s September 30, 2014 recommendation granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request to inspect Citigroup’s books and records. On May 5, 2015, Citigroup answered a similar complaint filed by Key West Municipal Firefighters & Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Fund. 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. Parmalat has appealed the judgment to the Italian Supreme Court. Prosecutors in Parma and Milan, Italy, brought 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). On April 18, 2011, the Milan criminal court acquitted the sole Citigroup defendant of market-rigging charges. The Milan prosecutors appealed part of that judgment and sought administrative remedies against Citigroup under Italian Administrative Law 231. On February 5, 2014, the Milan Court of Appeal restricted the remedy to an administrative fine of €500,000, which was later upheld by the Italian Supreme Court. Additionally, the Parmalat administrator filed a purported civil complaint against Citigroup in the context of the Parma criminal proceedings. On March 5, 2015, the Parma criminal court accepted plea bargain agreements from each of the defendants (eight current and former Citigroup employees) and closed the criminal proceedings that had been commenced by prosecutors in Parma. As a result of the agreements entered into by the individuals, the Parma criminal court was no longer able to hear the civil complaint filed by the Parmalat administrator against Citigroup. On June 16, 2015, the Parmalat administrator refiled the claim in an Italian civil court in Milan, this time claiming damages of €1.8 billion against Citigroup and Related Parties and other financial institutions. A preliminary hearing in this new Milan proceeding is scheduled for April 19, 2016. Regulatory Review of Student Loan Servicing Citibank is currently subject to regulatory investigation concerning certain student loan servicing practices. Citibank is cooperating with the investigation. Similar servicing practices have been the subject of an enforcement action against at least one other institution. In light of that action and the current regulatory focus on student loans, regulators may order that Citibank remediate customers and/or impose penalties or other relief. Sovereign Securities Matters Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s sales and trading activities in connection with sovereign securities. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these investigations and inquiries. Antitrust and Other 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, the Southern District of Alabama and the District of the Virgin Islands. In December 2015, the cases were consolidated before Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 15-MD-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, 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, 2015, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $3.5 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.

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 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. In December 2015, the remaining parties reached a settlement that released all claims against Citibank. A notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was filed on January 14, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number 03 Civ. 3748 (S.D.N.Y.) (Batts, J.).

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. Citibank and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) have contracts with a counterparty in relation to the provision of financing to that counterparty, 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, Citibank and CGML commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court in London to enforce their 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 Citibank and/or CGML had appropriately accelerated their counterparty’s obligation to repay under the applicable agreements, given these facts and circumstances. The High Court in London issued a judgment on May 22, 2015 holding that the Citigroup affiliates had properly served bring forward event notices, but that because the metal had not been properly delivered, the counterparty did not yet have to pay Citibank and CGML.

As a result of various filings by the parties, on January 15, 2016, Citibank and CGML were informed by the English Court of Appeal (i) that their application for permission to appeal certain aspects of the High Court’s 2015 judgment had been granted; and (ii) that the counterparty had also been given permission to appeal certain aspects of the 2015 judgment. Various procedural matters continue. 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, Appeal Nos. 2015/2407 (Citigroup) and 2015/2395 (Mercuria) as regards the appeals.

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 on the Consolidated Statement 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 Citigroup’s common and preferred stock and debt, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and (ii) individual investors and purported classes of 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, investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. These matters have been filed in state and federal courts across the U.S. and in foreign tribunals, as well as in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and other arbitration associations.

In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, 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 U.S. 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 and securitization of auto loans.

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Securities Actions: Beginning in November 2007, Citigroup and Related Parties were named as defendants in a variety of class and individual securities actions filed by investors in Citigroup’s equity and debt securities in state and federal courts relating to Citigroup’s disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime-related assets.

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.), 13-4488, 13-4504, and 15-2461 (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.

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, 2015, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigations was approximately $1.2 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation was approximately $500 million. Additional information concerning certain of these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-1729-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct.) (McCoy, C.), 650212/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Kornreich, J.), and 12 Civ. 3868 (S.D.N.Y.) (Forrest, 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. The trustees accepted the settlement for 64 trusts in whole, and four in part. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the trustees’ acceptance was subject to a judicial approval proceeding. On December 18, 2015, the court filed a decision and order approving the trustees’ entry into the settlement and finding that the trustees, in entering the settlement, had exercised their authority reasonably and in good faith. Additional information concerning this proceeding 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 that were excluded from the April 7, 2014 settlement in connection with four private-label securitizations. Citigroup has reached an agreement with the trustees to resolve three of these actions, and those actions were dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2016. The remaining three actions are in various stages of discovery. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims in the remaining actions as to approximately 2,900 loans that were securitized into these three 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.), 653919/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), 653929/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), and 653930/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

Mortgage-Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On June 18, 2014, a group of investors in 48 RMBS trusts for which Citibank 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 RMBS trustees, alleges that Citibank failed to pursue contractual remedies against securitization sponsors and servicers. This action was withdrawn without prejudice, effective December 17, 2014. 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 for which Citibank allegedly served or currently serves as trustee. On September 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. 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 November 24, 2015, largely the same group of investors filed another action in the New York State Supreme Court, captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M, ET AL. V. CITIBANK N.A., related to the 24 trusts dismissed from the federal court action and one additional trust, asserting claims similar to the original complaint filed in state court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.).

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for a financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK V. CITIBANK N.A. The complaint concerns one RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee, and alleges that Citibank failed to pursue contractual remedies against the sponsor and servicers of that trust. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.).

Counterparty and Investor Actions

In 2010, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA) commenced an arbitration (ADIA I) against Citigroup 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. 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. 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

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 asserted 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 sought to recover more than $400 million on behalf of a putative class of investors. On August 10, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement providing for a class action settlement of the litigation. The court held a final settlement hearing on December 17, 2015 and entered an order approving the settlement on January 28, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Woods, 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 auction rate securities (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

On February 8, 2012, Citibank 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 and those affiliates, and claims under federal bankruptcy and state law to recover $2 billion deposited by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) with Citibank against which Citibank asserts a right of setoff. Plaintiffs also sought avoidance of a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank and other relief; plaintiffs dismissed, with prejudice, their claim to avoid the $500 million transfer pursuant to a stipulation entered by the court on March 12, 2015. Plaintiffs filed various amended complaints asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims.

Discovery related to the remaining claims 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 on behalf of Lehman Brothers Finance AG against Citibank, Citibank Korea Inc. and CGML asserting that defendants improperly have withheld termination payments under certain derivatives contracts. An amended complaint was filed by plaintiff on August 6, 2014. Plaintiff seeks 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 14-02050 and 09-10583 (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 claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates arising out of the May 2007 auction of the music company, EMI, in which Citigroup affiliates 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 the defendants 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 claims against CGML, Citibank and Citigroup arising out of the EMI auction in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division and Manchester District Registry Mercantile Court in Manchester, England. 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 filed by Terra Firma in 2013 before the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, consented to the service by plaintiffs of an amended complaint 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. A trial (which is based on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations) is scheduled to begin in London on June 7, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference Terra Firma Investments (GP) 2 Ltd. & Ors v Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. & Ors (CL-2013-000293).

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. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed, and an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is pending. A motion to dismiss the action against CGMI in its role as advisor to Tribune is pending.

In the FITZSIMONS action, claims against certain Citigroup affiliates have been dismissed or reduced in amount by various orders. 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, CGML, Citicorp North America Inc. and Citibank, as well as Markit, ISDA, and 12 other investment bank dealer groups, a statement of objections alleging that Citi 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 set forth the EC’s preliminary conclusions, did not prejudge the final outcome of the case, and did not benefit from the review and consideration of Citi’s arguments and defenses. Thereafter, Citi filed a reply and made oral submissions to the EC. On December 4, 2015, the EC informed Citi that it had closed its proceeding against Citi and the other investment bank dealer groups, without further action.

In July 2009 and September 2011, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) on Citi concerning potential anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry.

In addition, putative class action complaints were filed by various entities against Citigroup, CGMI and Citibank, 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 in the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Denise Cote. On September 30, 2015, the defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, entered into settlement agreements 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.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s foreign exchange business. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries.

Antitrust and Other Litigation: Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank, 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 and declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed a consolidated amended complaint.

Citibank, 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 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. The 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. The plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, 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.).

Additional actions have been consolidated in the IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION proceeding, including lawsuits brought by, or on behalf of putative classes of, investors that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges. The plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act, and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On December 15, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily approving a proposed settlement between the Citi defendants and classes of plaintiffs who traded foreign exchange instruments in the spot market and on exchanges. The proposed settlement provides for the Citi defendants to receive a release in exchange for a payment of $394 million (which was made on December 18, 2015) plus a separate payment of $8 million (which is due upon final approval of the settlement by the court).

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 1350; 15 Civ. 2705; 15 Civ. 4230; 15 Civ. 4436; and 15 Civ. 4926 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On May 21, 2015, an action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of “consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency exchange rates” from defendants for their end use. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2015, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, and seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 9, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for 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 numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On June 3, 2015, an action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of qualified Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans for whom a defendant provided foreign exchange transactional services or authorized or permitted foreign exchange transactional services involving a plan’s assets in connection with its exercise of authority or control regarding an ERISA plan. The plaintiff alleges violations of ERISA, and seeks compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief. On June 29, 2015, ALLEN was consolidated with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION for discovery purposes only. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, 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 dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the foreign exchange 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, or disgorgement, on behalf of putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into a foreign exchange instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into a foreign exchange 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’ foreign exchange trading that caused them losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence, and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. On November 17, 2015, Citi filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On December 7, 2015, the court granted Citi’s motion for a stay of discovery. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: In June 2015, Citigroup was named as a defendant in IRA FOR THE BENEFIT OF VICTORIA SHAEV V. CITIGROUP INC. The complaint was filed by a putative stockholder in New York Supreme Court 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 Citigroup’s participation and activity in foreign exchange markets. On January 26, 2016, the court granted Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 652339/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: The CFTC and a consortium of state attorneys general, as well as government and regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, 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, 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). Consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter (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 LIBOR MDL. 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 LIBOR 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 (S.D.N.Y.) (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.); 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.); 15 Civ. 1334 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); and 15 Civ. 2973 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

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 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the 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. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on November 13, 2015. 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, 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. On March 31, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed this action. On June 1, 2015, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 981 (Gardephe, 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 U.S. Department of Justice’s motion to stay discovery for eight months, until May 12, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on August 13, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 14, 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.

On July 28, 2015, various objectors to the class settlement filed motions in the U.S. District Court to vacate the court’s prior approval of the class settlement, alleging improprieties by two of the lawyers involved in the Interchange MDL. 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.).

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. One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, names 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 MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.).

ISDAFIX-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including 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. On April 13, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims in plaintiffs’ amended consolidated complaint. 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

Regulatory Actions: 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 BUSA, Citibank and related parties’ compliance with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements under applicable federal laws and banking regulations. Citigroup and BUSA also have received inquiries and requests for information from other regulators, including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, concerning BSA- and AML-related issues. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries.

Citibank has received a subpoena from the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in connection with its investigation of alleged bribery, corruption and money laundering associated with the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), and the potential involvement of financial institutions in that activity. The subpoena requests information relating to, among other things, banking relationships and transactions at Citibank and its affiliates associated with certain individuals and entities identified as having had involvement with the alleged corrupt conduct. Citi is cooperating with the authorities in this matter.

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 Citigroup’s and certain of its affiliates’ present and former directors and officers. The plaintiffs asserted 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 the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise appropriate oversight and management of BSA and AML laws and regulations and related consent decrees concerning Citigroup’s subsidiaries Banco Nacional de Mexico, or Banamex, and BUSA. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs, with the permission of the court, filed an amended complaint naming additional present and former directors and officers of Citigroup affiliates as defendants. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7501 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).

Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters

Regulatory Actions: As a result of Citigroup’s announcement in the first quarter of 2014 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, the SEC commenced a formal investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice requested information regarding Banamex’s dealings with OSA. The SEC inquiry has included requests for documents and witness testimony. Citi continues to cooperate fully with these inquiries.

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 April 24, 2015, in the action brought by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, the Court of Chancery issued a decision adopting the Master in Chancery’s September 30, 2014 recommendation granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s request to inspect Citigroup’s books and records. On May 5, 2015, Citigroup answered a similar complaint filed by Key West Municipal Firefighters & Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Fund. 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. Parmalat has appealed the judgment to the Italian Supreme Court.

Prosecutors in Parma and Milan, Italy, brought 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). On April 18, 2011, the Milan criminal court acquitted the sole Citigroup defendant of market-rigging charges. The Milan prosecutors appealed part of that judgment and sought administrative remedies against Citigroup under Italian Administrative Law 231. On February 5, 2014, the Milan Court of Appeal restricted the remedy to an administrative fine of €500,000, which was later upheld by the Italian Supreme Court.

Additionally, the Parmalat administrator filed a purported civil complaint against Citigroup in the context of the Parma criminal proceedings. On March 5, 2015, the Parma criminal court accepted plea bargain agreements from each of the defendants (eight current and former Citigroup employees) and closed the criminal proceedings that had been commenced by prosecutors in Parma. As a result of the agreements entered into by the individuals, the Parma criminal court was no longer able to hear the civil complaint filed by the Parmalat administrator against Citigroup. On June 16, 2015, the Parmalat administrator refiled the claim in an Italian civil court in Milan, this time claiming damages of €1.8 billion against Citigroup and Related Parties and other financial institutions. A preliminary hearing in this new Milan proceeding is scheduled for April 19, 2016.

Regulatory Review of Student Loan Servicing

Citibank is currently subject to regulatory investigation concerning certain student loan servicing practices. Citibank is cooperating with the investigation. Similar servicing practices have been the subject of an enforcement action against at least one other institution. In light of that action and the current regulatory focus on student loans, regulators may order that Citibank remediate customers and/or impose penalties or other relief.

Sovereign Securities Matters

Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding Citigroup’s sales and trading activities in connection with sovereign securities. Citigroup is fully cooperating with these investigations and inquiries.

Antitrust and Other 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, the Southern District of Alabama and the District of the Virgin Islands.

In December 2015, the cases were consolidated before Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 15-MD-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, J.).

Settlement Payments

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