CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
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, and 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, 2016, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $3.0 billion in the aggregate. These estimates are based on currently available information. As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosures involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, (i) Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete, or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; (ii) its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and (iii) the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimate because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made. For other matters disclosed below, Citigroup is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. Many of these matters remain in very preliminary stages (even in some cases where a substantial period of time has passed since the commencement of the matter), with few or no substantive legal decisions by the court or tribunal defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any), or the potentially available damages, and fact discovery is still in progress or has not yet begun. In many of these matters, Citigroup has not yet answered the complaint or statement of claim or asserted its defenses, nor has it engaged in any negotiations with the adverse party (whether a regulator or a private party). For all these reasons, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters. Opinion of Management as to Eventual Outcome. Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup’s management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. Commodities Financing Contracts Beginning in May 2014, Citigroup became aware of reports of potential fraud relating to the financing of physical metal stored at the Qingdao and Penglai ports in China. Citibank and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) had financing contracts with Mercuria Energy Trading Pte. Ltd collateralized by physical metal stored at these ports, with the agreements providing that Mercuria would repurchase the inventory at a specified date in the future. On July 22, 2014, Citibank and CGML commenced proceedings in the High Court in London to enforce their rights under the relevant agreements in relation to approximately $285 million in financing. In December 2016, the Citigroup affiliates reached a resolution on this matter with Mercuria. Accordingly, steps have been taken to withdraw the proceedings in London, as well as related initiatives in Chinese courts. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference: Mercuria Energy Trading PTE Ltd & Another Citibank, N.A. & Another, Claim No. 2014 Folio 709, Appeal Nos. 2015/2407 (Citigroup) and 2015/2395 (Mercuria). Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Citigroup and Related Parties were 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 included, 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 or issued by Citigroup, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. 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), the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bank regulators, and other government authorities, in connection with various inquiries concerning Citigroup’s business activities. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup’s sponsorship, packaging, issuance, trading, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS. 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 the Company’s disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime-related assets. These actions asserted a wide range of claims, including claims under the federal securities laws, foreign securities laws, ERISA, and state law. All of these matters have now been dismissed or settled. Beginning in November 2007, certain Citigroup affiliates also were 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. Most 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 were 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, 2016, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigation was approximately $191 million, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by the remaining tolling (extension) agreement with an investor threatening litigation was approximately $500 million. Additional information concerning the remaining pending litigation is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13-1729-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct.) (McCoy, C.). 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. To date, trustees have filed six actions against Citigroup seeking to enforce certain of these contractual repurchase claims that were excluded from a previously disclosed settlement in connection with four private-label securitizations. Three of these actions were dismissed with prejudice in January 2016. Citigroup has reached an agreement with the directing certificate holder for one of the remaining actions, and the trustee is considering whether to accept the settlement. The other two remaining actions are in various stages of discovery. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims in the three 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. On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of their claims with respect to two of the three remaining trusts, leaving one trust at issue. 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. On June 22, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. 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. On September 30, 2016, the court granted Citibank’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FDIC lacked standing to pursue its claims. On October 14, 2016, the FDIC filed a motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment from the court’s dismissal order. 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 and Related Parties before the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), alleging statutory and common law claims in connection with its $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup in December 2007. ADIA sought rescission of the investment agreement or, in the alternative, more than $4 billion in damages. 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, and that award was confirmed in court. 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, seeking more than $2 billion in damages or rescission of one of the investment agreement’s ancillary agreements. This arbitration was resolved on December 14, 2016, when the arbitration panel issued a final decision. 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 have filed various amended complaints asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims, and have dismissed, with prejudice, their claim to avoid a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank. A trial has been scheduled for April 2017. 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.). 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. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on appeal. The noteholders’ petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari is pending. In the FITZSIMONS action, on January 6, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the actual fraudulent transfer claim against the shareholder defendants, including several Citigroup affiliates. 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.), 13-3992, 13-3875, 13-4196 (2d Cir.) and 16-317 (U.S.). Depositary Receipts Conversion Litigation Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI were sued by a purported class of persons or entities who, from January 2000 to the present, are or were holders of depositary receipts for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into U.S. dollars. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Citibank breached its deposit agreements by charging a spread for such conversions. Citi’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on August 15, 2016, and only the breach of contract claim against Citibank remains. Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of Citi’s profits, as well as compensatory, consequential and general damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9185 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.). 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 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 approximately $400 million. On December 20, 2016, the court approved the notice of settlements and preliminarily approved the plan of distribution. The final approval hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2017. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number: 13 Civ. 7789 (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 for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. filed a second amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Citibank and Citicorp as defendants, in addition to Citigroup and numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs seek 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, and are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 2, 2016, Citigroup and Related Parties, along with other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. 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 plaintiffs seek 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 plaintiffs allege violations of ERISA, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint against numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank. On April 15, 2016, the settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final settlement approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the motion in part as to claims based on collusive conduct and directed plaintiffs to file a separate pleading for claims based exclusively on non-collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 15, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the plaintiffs and settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On October 20, 2016, the ALLEN plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s dismissal of claims against settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after having also appealed dismissal as to other defendants. The Second Circuit has consolidated the two appeals. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 16-3327 (2d Cir.); and 16-3571 (2d Cir.). 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 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 June 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Citibank has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). On September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 civ.7512 (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. Citigroup and Related Parties have agreed to settle these actions for CAD 21 million. On December 14, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 13, 2017. 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.). Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On March 30, 2016, a derivative action captioned OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of Citigroup (as nominal defendant) against certain of Citigroup’s present and former directors and officers. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets in connection with defendants’ alleged failure to exercise appropriate oversight and management of Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws and regulations and related consent decrees concerning Citigroup subsidiaries, Citibanamex and Banamex USA (BUSA), as well as defendants’ alleged failures to implement adequate internal controls and exercise adequate oversight with respect to Citigroup subsidiaries’ participation in foreign exchange markets and credit card practices. On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended version of the supplemental complaint. On November 14, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended supplemental complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 12151-VCG (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.). Interest Rate Swaps Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: Beginning in November 2015, numerous interest rate swap (IRS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML, were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative class actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with their IRS transactions. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual actions filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all of these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.). Regulatory Actions: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an investigation into the trading and clearing of interest rate swaps by investment banks. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigation. Interchange Fee 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 individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding 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 district 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. Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, counsel for the class plaintiffs that entered the now-vacated settlement filed a petition for certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court relating to the Second Circuit’s decision. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions and the appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.), 12-4671 (2d Cir.) and 16-710 (U.S. Supreme Court). In addition, following the district court’s approval of the class settlement, and during the pendency of appeals from that approval, numerous merchants, including large national merchants, requested exclusion from the portion of the now-vacated settlement involving a settlement class certified with respect to damages claims for past conduct, and some of those opting out 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. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Regulatory Actions: A consortium of state attorneys general is conducting an investigation 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 investigation 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. Several individual actions 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 OTC purchasers and certain individual action 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: 11 Civ. 2613; 11 Civ. 5450; 11 Civ. 4186; 12 Civ. 1205; 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 May 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of antitrust claims in the action captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and remanded to the district court the issue of antitrust standing—specifically whether plaintiffs are “efficient enforcers” of the antitrust laws. On December 20, 2016 the district court resolved the issue of antitrust standing, dismissing certain plaintiffs’ actions on efficient enforcer grounds, and limiting the classes of OTC and exchange-traded derivative instruments purchasers. The district court also dismissed antitrust claims against Citigroup and Citibank brought by several individual plaintiffs outside of New York on personal jurisdiction grounds. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 16-545 (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 August 13, 2015, 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 fourth amended complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank 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 February 21, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). On July 1, 2016, a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, 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 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 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 requested 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, Citibanamex and BUSA. Due to the similarity of issues, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action in favor of proceeding together with plaintiffs in the derivative action captioned OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. in the Delaware Chancery Court, described above. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers C.A. No. 12151-VCP (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.) and 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. Other Litigation: On February 26, 2016, a complaint was filed against Citigroup in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that it conspired with Oceanografía, S.A. de C.V. (OSA) and others with respect to receivable financings and other financing arrangements related to OSA in a manner that injured bondholders and other creditors of OSA. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of 39 plaintiffs that are characterized in the complaint variously as trade creditors of, investors in, or lenders to OSA. Plaintiffs collectively claim to have lost $1.1 billion as a result of OSA’s bankruptcy. The complaint asserts claims under the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks treble damages and other relief pursuant to that statute. The complaint also asserts claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. On August 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding common law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and conspiracy on behalf of all plaintiffs. Citigroup has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D. Fla.) (Gayles, J.). 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 on three counterclaims, awarding Citi $431 million. 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.). 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, plus interest, to be paid in Parmalat shares. Parmalat has appealed the judgment to the Italian Supreme Court. On June 16, 2015, the Parmalat administrator refiled a prior claim in an Italian civil court in Milan claiming damages of €1.8 billion against Citigroup and Related Parties and other financial institutions. The next hearing in this proceeding is scheduled for May 30, 2017. Referral Hiring Practices Investigations Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including the SEC, are conducting investigations or making inquiries concerning compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the hiring of candidates referred by or related to foreign government officials. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries. 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 and 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 and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. 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 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.). Since May 2016, a number of substantially similar putative class action complaints have been filed against a number of financial institutions and traders related to the supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market. Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML are named as defendants in three of the complaints. The actions are based upon the defendants’ roles as market makers and traders of SSA bonds and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and disgorgement. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in August 2016, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 16-cv-03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, 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, and 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, 2016, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $3.0 billion in the aggregate.

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

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

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

Commodities Financing Contracts

Beginning in May 2014, Citigroup became aware of reports of potential fraud relating to the financing of physical metal stored at the Qingdao and Penglai ports in China. Citibank and Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) had financing contracts with Mercuria Energy Trading Pte. Ltd collateralized by physical metal stored at these ports, with the agreements providing that Mercuria would repurchase the inventory at a specified date in the future. On July 22, 2014, Citibank and CGML commenced proceedings in the High Court in London to enforce their rights under the relevant agreements in relation to approximately $285 million in financing.

In December 2016, the Citigroup affiliates reached a resolution on this matter with Mercuria. Accordingly, steps have been taken to withdraw the proceedings in London, as well as related initiatives in Chinese courts. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the claim reference: Mercuria Energy Trading PTE Ltd & Another Citibank, N.A. & Another, Claim No. 2014 Folio 709, Appeal Nos. 2015/2407 (Citigroup) and 2015/2395 (Mercuria).

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Citigroup and Related Parties were 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 included, 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 or issued by Citigroup, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), mortgage-backed securities (MBS), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, which suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis.

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), the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bank regulators, and other government authorities, in connection with various inquiries concerning Citigroup’s business activities. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup’s sponsorship, packaging, issuance, trading, servicing and underwriting of CDOs and MBS.

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 the Company’s disclosures regarding its exposure to subprime-related assets. These actions asserted a wide range of claims, including claims under the federal securities laws, foreign securities laws, ERISA, and state law. All of these matters have now been dismissed or settled.

Beginning in November 2007, certain Citigroup affiliates also were 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. Most 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 were 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, 2016, the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending litigation was approximately $191 million, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by the remaining tolling (extension) agreement with an investor threatening litigation was approximately $500 million. Additional information concerning the remaining pending litigation is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13-1729-II (Tenn. Ch. Ct.) (McCoy, C.).

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.

To date, trustees have filed six actions against Citigroup seeking to enforce certain of these contractual repurchase claims that were excluded from a previously disclosed settlement in connection with four private-label securitizations. Three of these actions were dismissed with prejudice in January 2016. Citigroup has reached an agreement with the directing certificate holder for one of the remaining actions, and the trustee is considering whether to accept the settlement. The other two remaining actions are in various stages of discovery. In the aggregate, plaintiffs are asserting repurchase claims in the three 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. On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of their claims with respect to two of the three remaining trusts, leaving one trust at issue. 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. On June 22, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. 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. On September 30, 2016, the court granted Citibank’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FDIC lacked standing to pursue its claims. On October 14, 2016, the FDIC filed a motion for reconsideration or relief from judgment from the court’s dismissal order. 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 and Related Parties before the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), alleging statutory and common law claims in connection with its $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup in December 2007. ADIA sought rescission of the investment agreement or, in the alternative, more than $4 billion in damages. 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, and that award was confirmed in court. 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, seeking more than $2 billion in damages or rescission of one of the investment agreement’s ancillary agreements. This arbitration was resolved on December 14, 2016, when the arbitration panel issued a final decision.

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 have filed various amended complaints asserting additional claims and factual allegations, and amending certain previously asserted claims, and have dismissed, with prejudice, their claim to avoid a $500 million transfer and an amendment to a guarantee in favor of Citibank. A trial has been scheduled for April 2017. 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.).

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. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on appeal. The noteholders’ petition to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari is pending.

In the FITZSIMONS action, on January 6, 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the actual fraudulent transfer claim against the shareholder defendants, including several Citigroup affiliates. 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.), 13-3992, 13-3875, 13-4196 (2d Cir.) and 16-317 (U.S.).

Depositary Receipts Conversion Litigation

Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI were sued by a purported class of persons or entities who, from January 2000 to the present, are or were holders of depositary receipts for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into U.S. dollars. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Citibank breached its deposit agreements by charging a spread for such conversions. Citi’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on August 15, 2016, and only the breach of contract claim against Citibank remains. Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of Citi’s profits, as well as compensatory, consequential and general damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9185 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.).

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 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 approximately $400 million. On December 20, 2016, the court approved the notice of settlements and preliminarily approved the plan of distribution. The final approval hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2017. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number: 13 Civ. 7789 (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 for possible consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. filed a second amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming Citibank and Citicorp as defendants, in addition to Citigroup and numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs seek 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, and are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 2, 2016, Citigroup and Related Parties, along with other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. 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 plaintiffs seek 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 plaintiffs allege violations of ERISA, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On April 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint against numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and Citibank. On April 15, 2016, the settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final settlement approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the motion in part as to claims based on collusive conduct and directed plaintiffs to file a separate pleading for claims based exclusively on non-collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on July 15, 2016.

On September 20, 2016, the plaintiffs and settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On October 20, 2016, the ALLEN plaintiffs appealed the lower court’s dismissal of claims against settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after having also appealed dismissal as to other defendants. The Second Circuit has consolidated the two appeals. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 16-3327 (2d Cir.); and 16-3571 (2d Cir.).

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 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 June 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Citibank has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs have cross-moved for partial summary judgment. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

On September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 civ.7512 (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. Citigroup and Related Parties have agreed to settle these actions for CAD 21 million. On December 14, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 13, 2017. 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.).

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On March 30, 2016, a derivative action captioned OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of Citigroup (as nominal defendant) against certain of Citigroup’s present and former directors and officers. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets in connection with defendants’ alleged failure to exercise appropriate oversight and management of Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws and regulations and related consent decrees concerning Citigroup subsidiaries, Citibanamex and Banamex USA (BUSA), as well as defendants’ alleged failures to implement adequate internal controls and exercise adequate oversight with respect to Citigroup subsidiaries’ participation in foreign exchange markets and credit card practices. On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended version of the supplemental complaint. On November 14, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended supplemental complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 12151-VCG (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.).

Interest Rate Swaps Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: Beginning in November 2015, numerous interest rate swap (IRS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML, were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative class actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with their IRS transactions. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are two individual actions filed by swap execution facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust claims as well as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs in all of these actions seek treble damages, fees, costs and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.).

Regulatory Actions: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an investigation into the trading and clearing of interest rate swaps by investment banks. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigation.

Interchange Fee 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 individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding 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 district 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. Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, counsel for the class plaintiffs that entered the now-vacated settlement filed a petition for certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court relating to the Second Circuit’s decision. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions and the appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.), 12-4671 (2d Cir.) and 16-710 (U.S. Supreme Court).

In addition, following the district court’s approval of the class settlement, and during the pendency of appeals from that approval, numerous merchants, including large national merchants, requested exclusion from the portion of the now-vacated settlement involving a settlement class certified with respect to damages claims for past conduct, and some of those opting out 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. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Regulatory Actions: A consortium of state attorneys general is conducting an investigation 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 investigation 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. Several individual actions 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 OTC purchasers and certain individual action 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: 11 Civ. 2613; 11 Civ. 5450; 11 Civ. 4186; 12 Civ. 1205; 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 May 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of antitrust claims in the action captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and remanded to the district court the issue of antitrust standing—specifically whether plaintiffs are “efficient enforcers” of the antitrust laws. On December 20, 2016 the district court resolved the issue of antitrust standing, dismissing certain plaintiffs’ actions on efficient enforcer grounds, and limiting the classes of OTC and exchange-traded derivative instruments purchasers. The district court also dismissed antitrust claims against Citigroup and Citibank brought by several individual plaintiffs outside of New York on personal jurisdiction grounds. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 16-545 (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 August 13, 2015, 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 fourth amended complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank 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 February 21, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

On July 1, 2016, a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citibank, Citigroup and various other banks. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, 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 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 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 requested 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, Citibanamex and BUSA. Due to the similarity of issues, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action in favor of proceeding together with plaintiffs in the derivative action captioned OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. in the Delaware Chancery Court, described above. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers C.A. No. 12151-VCP (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.) and 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.

Other Litigation: On February 26, 2016, a complaint was filed against Citigroup in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that it conspired with Oceanografía, S.A. de C.V. (OSA) and others with respect to receivable financings and other financing arrangements related to OSA in a manner that injured bondholders and other creditors of OSA. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of 39 plaintiffs that are characterized in the complaint variously as trade creditors of, investors in, or lenders to OSA. Plaintiffs collectively claim to have lost $1.1 billion as a result of OSA’s bankruptcy. The complaint asserts claims under the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and seeks treble damages and other relief pursuant to that statute. The complaint also asserts claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

On August 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding common law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and conspiracy on behalf of all plaintiffs. Citigroup has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D. Fla.) (Gayles, J.).

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 on three counterclaims, awarding Citi $431 million. 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.). 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, plus interest, to be paid in Parmalat shares. Parmalat has appealed the judgment to the Italian Supreme Court.

On June 16, 2015, the Parmalat administrator refiled a prior claim in an Italian civil court in Milan claiming damages of €1.8 billion against Citigroup and Related Parties and other financial institutions. The next hearing in this proceeding is scheduled for May 30, 2017.

Referral Hiring Practices Investigations

Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S., including the SEC, are conducting investigations or making inquiries concerning compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the hiring of candidates referred by or related to foreign government officials. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries.

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 and 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 and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. 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 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.).

Since May 2016, a number of substantially similar putative class action complaints have been filed against a number of financial institutions and traders related to the supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market. Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML are named as defendants in three of the complaints. The actions are based upon the defendants’ roles as market makers and traders of SSA bonds and assert claims of alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment and seek damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and disgorgement. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in August 2016, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number: 16-cv-03711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).

Settlement Payments

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