CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
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, regulatory, tax and other 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, regulatory and tax 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 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, Regulatory and Other 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 advisors or other regulated entities and, in those capacities, are subject to regulation by various U.S., state and foreign securities, banking, commodity futures, consumer protection and other regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, Citigroup and such affiliates and subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities. From time to time Citigroup and Related Parties also receive grand jury subpoenas and other requests for information or assistance, formal or informal, from federal or state law enforcement agencies including, among others, various United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and other divisions of the Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to Citigroup and its customers. Because of the global scope of Citigroup’s operations, and its presence in countries around the world, Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to litigation and governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) in multiple jurisdictions with legal, regulatory and tax 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, regulatory, tax and other 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, proceeding 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, regulator’s or other authority’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 a proceeding or 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, 2019, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $1.3 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, other tribunal or authority on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties, regulators or other authorities, 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 of 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, tribunal or other authority defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any) or the potentially available damages or other exposure, 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, taxing authority 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 or other 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. ANZ Underwriting Matter In June 2018, the Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) filed charges against Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (CGMA) for alleged criminal cartel offenses following a referral by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. CDPP alleges that the cartel conduct took place following an institutional share placement by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) in August 2015, where CGMA acted as joint underwriter and lead manager with other banks. CDPP also charged other banks and individuals, including current and former Citi employees. Separately, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is conducting an investigation, and CGMA is cooperating with the investigation. Charges relating to CGMA are captioned R v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED. The matter is before the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney, Australia. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 2018/00175168. 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 cooperating with these and related investigations and inquiries. Antitrust and Other Litigation: In 2018, a number of institutional investors who opted out of the previously disclosed August 2018 final settlement filed an action against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the foreign exchange markets. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, and seek consequential and punitive damages and other forms of relief. In July 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 18 Civ. 10364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). In December 2018, a group of institutional investors issued a claim against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS GMBH AND OTHERS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, in the High Court in London. Claimants allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the foreign exchange market in violation of EU and U.K. competition laws. In July 2019, defendants responded to plaintiffs’ claims, and in September 2019, claimants filed their reply. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CL-2018-000840. In 2015, a putative class of consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency at benchmark exchange rates filed an action against Citigroup and other defendants, captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint, naming Citigroup, Citibank and Citicorp as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of defendants’ alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market. Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and California antitrust and consumer protection laws, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. 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.). In 2017, putative classes of indirect purchasers of certain foreign exchange instruments filed an action against Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp, CGMI and other defendants, captioned CONTANT, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, and seek compensatory damages and treble damages. In July 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between plaintiffs and Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17 Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On May 27, 2019, a putative class action was filed against Citibank and other defendants, captioned J WISBEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v. UBS AG & ORS, in the Federal Court of Australia. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange markets. Plaintiffs assert claims under antitrust laws, and seek compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number VID567/2019. On July 29, 2019, an application, captioned MICHAEL O’HIGGINS FX CLASS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was made to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective proceedings against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants. The application seeks compensatory damages for losses alleged to have arisen from the actions at issue in the European Commission’s foreign exchange spot trading infringement decision (European Commission Decision of May 16, 2019 in Case AT.40135-FOREX (Three Way Banana Split) C(2019) 3631 final). Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1329/7/7/19. On December 20, 2019, an application, captioned PHILLIP EVANS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was made to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective proceedings against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants. The application seeks compensatory damages similar to those in the Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited application. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1336/7/7/19. In September 2019, two motions for certification of class actions filed against Citibank, Citigroup and Citicorp and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption GERTLER, ET AL. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, in the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange markets. The amended motion for certification has not yet been served on Citigroup or Citicorp. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CA 29013-09-18. Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: In 2016, a putative class action was filed against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants, now captioned FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS LLC, AS ASSIGNOR AND SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND L.P., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the RICO Act and state law. In May 2018, plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Citibank and Citigroup, under which Citibank and Citigroup agreed to pay approximately $10 million. In July 2019, the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the non-settling defendants and dismissed the case. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement and denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In August 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.) and 19-2719 (2d Cir.). In 2016, Banque Delubac filed an action against Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) and Citigroup Europe Plc, captioned SCS BANQUE DELUBAC & CIE v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., in the Commercial Court of Aubenas in France. Plaintiff alleges that defendants suppressed LIBOR submissions between 2005 and 2012 and that Banque Delubac’s EURIBOR-linked lending activity was negatively impacted as a result. Plaintiff asserts a claim under tort law, and seeks compensatory damages and consequential damages. In November 2018, the Commercial Court of Aubenas referred the case to the Commercial Court of Marseille. In March 2019, the Court of Appeal of Nîmes held that neither the Commercial Court of Aubenas nor any other court of France has territorial jurisdiction over Banque Delubac’s claims. In May 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Cour de cassation of France challenging the Court of Appeal of Nîmes’s decision. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers RG no. 2018F02750 in the Commercial Court of Marseille and 19-16.931 in the Cour de cassation. In May 2019, three putative class actions filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE ICE LIBOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendants suppressed ICE LIBOR. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, disgorgement and treble damages. In August 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the action. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 439 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). Interchange Fee Litigation Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup, Citibank and Citicorp, 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. 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 various 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 unreasonably through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Plaintiffs further alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Supplemental complaints also were 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. In 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, cash payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 bps 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. In 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. The district court thereafter appointed separate interim counsel for a putative class seeking damages and a putative class seeking injunctive relief. Amended or new complaints on behalf of the putative classes and various individual merchants were subsequently filed, including a further amended complaint on behalf of a putative damages class and a new complaint on behalf of a putative injunctive class, both of which named Citigroup and Related Parties. In addition, numerous merchants have filed amended or new complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. Three of these suits—7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL.; ROUNDY’S SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. VISA INC. ET AL.; and LUBY’S FUDDRUCKERS RESTAURANTS, LLC, v. VISA INC., ET AL—brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, name Citigroup and affiliates as defendants. On December 13, 2019, the district court granted the damages class plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a new settlement with the defendants. The settlement involves the damages class only and does not settle the claims of the injunctive relief class or any actions brought on a non-class basis by individual merchants. The settlement provides for a cash payment to the damages class of $6.24 billion, though that amount has been reduced by $700 million based on the transaction volume of class members that opted-out from the settlement. Several merchants and merchant groups have appealed the final approval order. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.). Interest Rate and Credit Default Swap Matters Regulatory Actions: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is conducting an investigation into alleged anticompetitive conduct in the trading and clearing of interest rate swaps (IRS) by investment banks. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigation. Antitrust and Other Litigation: Beginning in 2015, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, and numerous other parties were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative class actions related to IRS trading. 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. The complaints allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS and assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are 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. Lead plaintiffs in the class action moved for class certification in February 2019, and subsequently filed a fourth amended complaint. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 18-CV-5361 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.) and 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.). In 2017, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and numerous other parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption TERA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL. The complaint alleges that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for credit default swaps and asserts federal and state antitrust claims and state law tort claims. In January 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-CV-4302 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.). Parmalat Litigation In 2004, an Italian commissioner appointed to oversee the administration of various Parmalat companies filed a complaint against Citigroup and Related Parties alleging that the defendants facilitated a number of frauds by Parmalat insiders. In 2008, a jury rendered a verdict in Citigroup’s favor and awarded Citi $431 million. Citigroup has taken steps to enforce the judgment in Italian court. In April 2019, the Italian Supreme Court affirmed the decision in the full amount of $431 million. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 27618/2014 and 10540/2019. In 2015, Parmalat filed a claim in an Italian civil court in Milan claiming damages of €1.8 billion against Citigroup and Related Parties. The Milan court dismissed Parmalat’s claim on grounds that it was duplicative of Parmalat’s previously unsuccessful claims. In May 2019, the Milan Court of Appeal rejected Parmalat’s appeal against the decision of the Milan court. In June 2019, Parmalat filed a further appeal with the Italian Supreme Court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 20598/2019. On January 29, 2020, Parmalat, its three directors and its sole shareholder, Sofil S.a.s., as co-plaintiffs, filed a claim before the Italian civil court in Milan seeking a declaratory judgment that they do not owe compensatory damages of €990 million to Citibank. Payment Protection Insurance Regulators and courts in the U.K. have scrutinized the selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) by financial institutions for several years. Citibank continues to review customer claims relating to the sale of PPI in the U.K., to grant redress in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Conduct Authority and to defend claims filed in U.K. courts. 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 and other government-related securities. Citigroup is cooperating with these investigations and inquiries. Antitrust and Other Litigation: In 2015, putative class actions filed against CGMI and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE TREASURY SECURITIES AUCTION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In December 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging that defendants colluded to fix Treasury auction bids by sharing competitively sensitive information ahead of the auctions, and that defendants colluded to boycott and prevent the emergence of an anonymous, all-to-all electronic trading platform in the Treasuries secondary market. The complaint asserts claims under antitrust laws, and seeks damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. In February 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-MD-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, J.). In 2016 and 2017, class actions by direct purchasers of supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2018, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed, alleging that defendants, as market makers and traders of SSA bonds, colluded to fix the price at which they bought and sold SSA bonds in the secondary market. The complaint asserts claims under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and disgorgement. In September 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss certain defendants, including CGML. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 3711 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.). On February 7, 2019, a putative class action, captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants, captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims under New York antitrust laws based on the same conduct alleged in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The action is currently stayed pending a decision on the remaining motion to dismiss in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 01205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Swain, J.). In 2017, a class action related to the SSA bond market was filed in the Ontario Court of Justice in Canada, against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada, Inc. and other defendants, asserting plaintiff claims under breach of contract, breach of the competition act, breach of foreign law, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CV-17-586082-00CP (Ont. S.C.J.). In 2017, purchasers of SSA bonds filed a similar action against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada, Inc. and other defendants, captioned JOSEPH MANCINELLI, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Federal Court in Canada. In October 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended claim. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the SSA bonds market. Plaintiffs assert claims under breach of the competition law, breach of foreign law, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, waiver of tort and breach of contract. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number T-1871-17 (Fed. Ct.). On September 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended complaint against CGMI and other defendants, under the caption IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to manipulate the market for bonds issued by U.S. government-sponsored agencies. Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. In December 2019, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement with CGMI and 11 other defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 1704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.). On September 23, 2019, the State of Louisiana filed an action against CGMI and other defendants, captioned STATE OF LOUISIANA v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to manipulate the market for bonds issued by U.S. government-sponsored agencies. Plaintiff asserts a claim against defendants for a violation of the Sherman Act, and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 638 (M.D. La.) (Dick, C.J.). On October 21, 2019, the City of Baton Rouge and related plaintiffs filed a substantially similar action against CGMI and other defendants, captioned CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to manipulate the market for U.S. government-sponsored agencies bonds. Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 725 (M.D. La.) (Dick, C.J.). In 2018, a putative class action was filed against Citigroup, CGMI, Citigroup Financial Products Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., Citibanamex, Grupo Banamex and other banks, captioned IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants colluded in the Mexican sovereign bond market. In September 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Citibanamex and other market makers in the Mexican sovereign bond market. Plaintiffs no longer assert any claims against Citigroup and any other Citi affiliates. The amended complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices in the Mexican sovereign bond market from January 1, 2006 to April 19, 2017, and asserts antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and seek treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 18 Civ. 2830 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.). Transaction Tax Matters Citigroup and Citibank are engaged in litigation or examinations with tax authorities in India and Germany concerning the payment of transaction taxes and other non-income tax matters. Tribune Company Bankruptcy Certain Citigroup affiliates (along with numerous other parties) 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. The actions were consolidated as IN RE TRIBUNE COMPANY FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE LITIGATION and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the adversary proceeding captioned KIRSCHNER v. FITZSIMONS, ET AL., the litigation trustee, as successor plaintiff to the unsecured creditors committee, 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, along with numerous other parties, were named as shareholder defendants and were alleged to have tendered Tribune stock to Tribune as a part of the buyout. In 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the actual fraudulent transfer claim against the shareholder defendants, including the Citigroup affiliates. In July 2019, the litigation trustee filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Several Citigroup affiliates, along with numerous other parties, are named as defendants in certain actions brought by Tribune noteholders, which seek to recover the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout, as state-law constructive fraudulent conveyances. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit withdrew its 2016 transfer of jurisdiction to the district court to reconsider its decision in light of a recent United States Supreme Court decision. In December 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an amended decision again affirming the dismissal. In January 2020, the noteholders filed a petition for rehearing. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) was named as a defendant in a separate action in connection with its role as advisor to Tribune. In January 2019, the court dismissed the action, which the litigation trustee has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 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.) (Cote, J.), 12 MC 2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.), 13-3992 (2d Cir.), 19-0449 (2d Cir.), 19-3049 (2d Cir.) and 16-317 (U.S.). Variable Rate Demand Obligation Litigation On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated actions CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and numerous other industry participants. The consolidated complaint asserts violations of the Sherman Act, as well as claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that defendants served as remarketing agents for municipal bonds called variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) and colluded to set artificially high VRDO interest rates. In July 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 19-CV-1608 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.) and 19-CV-2667 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.). Settlement Payments Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.

ASC 450 governs the disclosure and recognition of loss contingencies, including potential losses from litigation, regulatory, tax and other 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, regulatory and tax 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 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.

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 advisors or other regulated entities and, in those capacities, are subject to regulation by various U.S., state and foreign securities, banking, commodity futures, consumer protection and other regulators. In connection with formal and informal inquiries by these regulators, Citigroup and such affiliates and subsidiaries receive numerous requests, subpoenas and orders seeking documents, testimony and other information in connection with various aspects of their regulated activities. From time to time Citigroup and Related Parties also receive grand jury subpoenas and other requests for information or assistance, formal or informal, from federal or state law enforcement agencies including, among others, various United States Attorneys’ Offices, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and other divisions of the Department of Justice, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to Citigroup and its customers.

Because of the global scope of Citigroup’s operations, and its presence in countries around the world, Citigroup and Related Parties are subject to litigation and governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) in multiple jurisdictions with legal, regulatory and tax 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.

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, proceeding 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, regulator’s or other authority’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 a proceeding or 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, 2019, Citigroup estimates that the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $1.3 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, other tribunal or authority on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse

parties, regulators or other authorities, 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 of 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, tribunal or other authority defining the scope of the claims, the class (if any) or the potentially available damages or other exposure, 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, taxing authority 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 or other 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.

In June 2018, the Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) filed charges against Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (CGMA) for alleged criminal cartel offenses following a referral by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. CDPP alleges that the cartel conduct took place following an institutional share placement by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) in August 2015, where CGMA acted as joint underwriter and lead manager with other banks. CDPP also charged other banks and individuals, including current and former Citi employees. Separately, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is conducting an investigation, and CGMA is cooperating with the investigation. Charges relating to CGMA are captioned R v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED. The matter is before the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney, Australia. Additional information concerning this action is

Antitrust and Other Litigation: In 2018, a number of institutional investors who opted out of the previously disclosed August 2018 final settlement filed an action against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the foreign exchange markets. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment claims, and seek consequential and punitive damages and other forms of relief. In July 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 18 Civ. 10364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

In December 2018, a group of institutional investors issued a claim against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS GMBH AND OTHERS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, in the High Court in London. Claimants allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the foreign exchange market in violation of EU and U.K. competition laws. In July 2019, defendants responded to plaintiffs’ claims, and in September 2019, claimants filed their reply. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CL-2018-000840.

In 2015, a putative class of consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign currency at benchmark exchange rates filed an action against Citigroup and other defendants, captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint, naming Citigroup, Citibank and Citicorp as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of defendants’ alleged manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market. Plaintiffs assert claims under federal and California antitrust and consumer protection laws, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. 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.).

Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, and seek compensatory damages and treble damages. In July 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement between plaintiffs and Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp and CGMI. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17 Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On May 27, 2019, a putative class action was filed against Citibank and other defendants, captioned J WISBEY & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD v. UBS AG & ORS, in the Federal Court of Australia. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange markets. Plaintiffs assert claims under antitrust laws, and seek compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number VID567/2019.

On July 29, 2019, an application, captioned MICHAEL O’HIGGINS FX CLASS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was made to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective proceedings against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants. The application seeks compensatory damages for losses alleged to have arisen from the actions at issue in the European Commission’s foreign exchange spot trading infringement decision (European Commission Decision of May 16, 2019 in Case AT.40135-FOREX (Three Way Banana Split) C(2019) 3631 final). Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1329/7/7/19.

On December 20, 2019, an application, captioned PHILLIP EVANS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, was made to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective proceedings against Citibank, Citigroup and other defendants. The application seeks compensatory damages similar to those in the Michael O’Higgins FX Class Representative Limited application. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 1336/7/7/19.

In September 2019, two motions for certification of class actions filed against Citibank, Citigroup and Citicorp and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption GERTLER, ET AL. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG, in the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the foreign exchange markets. The amended motion for certification has not yet been served on Citigroup or Citicorp. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CA 29013-09-18.

FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND L.P., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the RICO Act and state law. In May 2018, plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Citibank and Citigroup, under which Citibank and Citigroup agreed to pay approximately $10 million. In July 2019, the court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the non-settling defendants and dismissed the case. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement and denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In August 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.) and 19-2719 (2d Cir.).

In 2016, Banque Delubac filed an action against Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Limited (CGML) and Citigroup Europe Plc, captioned SCS BANQUE DELUBAC & CIE v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., in the Commercial Court of Aubenas in France. Plaintiff alleges that defendants suppressed LIBOR submissions between 2005 and 2012 and that Banque Delubac’s EURIBOR-linked lending activity was negatively impacted as a result. Plaintiff asserts a claim under tort law, and seeks compensatory damages and consequential damages. In November 2018, the Commercial Court of Aubenas referred the case to the Commercial Court of Marseille. In March 2019, the Court of Appeal of Nîmes held that neither the Commercial Court of Aubenas nor any other court of France has territorial jurisdiction over Banque Delubac’s claims. In May 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Cour de cassation of France challenging the Court of Appeal of Nîmes’s decision. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers RG no. 2018F02750 in the Commercial Court of Marseille and 19-16.931 in the Cour de cassation.

In May 2019, three putative class actions filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE ICE LIBOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. In July 2019, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that defendants suppressed ICE LIBOR. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and unjust enrichment, and seek compensatory damages, disgorgement and treble damages. In August 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the action. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 439 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards as well as various 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 unreasonably through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Plaintiffs further alleged violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Supplemental complaints also were 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.

In 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, cash payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 bps 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.

In 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. The district court thereafter appointed separate interim counsel for a putative class seeking damages and a putative class seeking injunctive relief. Amended or new complaints on behalf of the putative classes and various individual merchants were subsequently filed, including a further amended complaint on behalf of a putative damages class and a new complaint on behalf of a putative injunctive class, both of which named Citigroup and Related Parties. In addition, numerous merchants have filed amended or new complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. Three of these suits—7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL.; ROUNDY’S SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. VISA INC. ET AL.; and LUBY’S FUDDRUCKERS RESTAURANTS, LLC, v. VISA INC., ET AL—brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, name Citigroup and affiliates as defendants.

On December 13, 2019, the district court granted the damages class plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a new settlement with the defendants. The settlement involves the damages class only and does not settle the claims of the injunctive relief class or any actions brought on a non-class basis by individual merchants. The settlement provides for a cash payment to the damages class of $6.24 billion, though that amount has been reduced by $700 million based on the transaction volume of class members that opted-out from the settlement. Several merchants and merchant groups have appealed the final approval order. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in

Antitrust and Other Litigation: Beginning in 2015, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, and numerous other parties were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative class actions related to IRS trading. 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. The complaints allege that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS and assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same caption are 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. Lead plaintiffs in the class action moved for class certification in February 2019, and subsequently filed a fourth amended complaint. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 18-CV-5361 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.) and 16-MD-2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.).

In 2017, Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and numerous other parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption TERA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL. The complaint alleges that defendants colluded to prevent the development of exchange-like trading for credit default swaps and asserts federal and state antitrust claims and state law tort claims. In January 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-CV-4302 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.).

In 2004, an Italian commissioner appointed to oversee the administration of various Parmalat companies filed a complaint against Citigroup and Related Parties alleging that the defendants facilitated a number of frauds by Parmalat insiders. In 2008, a jury rendered a verdict in Citigroup’s favor and awarded Citi $431 million. Citigroup has taken steps to enforce the judgment in Italian court. In April 2019, the Italian Supreme Court affirmed the decision in the full amount of $431 million. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 27618/2014 and 10540/2019.

unsuccessful claims. In May 2019, the Milan Court of Appeal rejected Parmalat’s appeal against the decision of the Milan court. In June 2019, Parmalat filed a further appeal with the Italian Supreme Court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 20598/2019.

Regulators and courts in the U.K. have scrutinized the selling of payment protection insurance (PPI) by financial institutions for several years. Citibank continues to review customer claims relating to the sale of PPI in the U.K., to grant redress in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Conduct Authority and to defend claims filed in U.K. courts.

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 and other government-related securities. Citigroup is cooperating with these investigations and inquiries.

Antitrust and Other Litigation: In 2015, putative class actions filed against CGMI and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE TREASURY SECURITIES AUCTION ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In December 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging that defendants colluded to fix Treasury auction bids by sharing competitively sensitive information ahead of the auctions, and that defendants colluded to boycott and prevent the emergence of an anonymous, all-to-all electronic trading platform in the Treasuries secondary market. The complaint asserts claims under antitrust laws, and seeks damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. In February 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-MD-2673 (S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, J.).

In 2016 and 2017, class actions by direct purchasers of supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants were consolidated, under the caption IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2018, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed, alleging that defendants, as market makers and traders of SSA bonds, colluded to fix the price at which they bought and sold SSA bonds in the secondary market. The complaint asserts claims under the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, including treble damages where authorized by statute, and disgorgement. In September 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss certain

On February 7, 2019, a putative class action, captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and other defendants, captioned STACHON v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims under New York antitrust laws based on the same conduct alleged in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The action is currently stayed pending a decision on the remaining motion to dismiss in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 01205 (S.D.N.Y.) (Swain, J.).

In 2017, a class action related to the SSA bond market was filed in the Ontario Court of Justice in Canada, against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada, Inc. and other defendants, asserting plaintiff claims under breach of contract, breach of the competition act, breach of foreign law, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CV-17-586082-00CP (Ont. S.C.J.).

In 2017, purchasers of SSA bonds filed a similar action against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML, Citibank Canada, Citigroup Global Markets Canada, Inc. and other defendants, captioned JOSEPH MANCINELLI, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., in the Federal Court in Canada. In October 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended claim. Plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated, and colluded to manipulate, the SSA bonds market. Plaintiffs assert claims under breach of the competition law, breach of foreign law, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, waiver of tort and breach of contract. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number T-1871-17 (Fed. Ct.).

On September 10, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended complaint against CGMI and other defendants, under the caption IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to manipulate the market for bonds issued by U.S. government-sponsored agencies. Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. In December 2019, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of a settlement with CGMI and 11 other defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 1704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Rakoff, J.).

manipulate the market for bonds issued by U.S. government-sponsored agencies. Plaintiff asserts a claim against defendants for a violation of the Sherman Act, and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 638 (M.D. La.) (Dick, C.J.).

On October 21, 2019, the City of Baton Rouge and related plaintiffs filed a substantially similar action against CGMI and other defendants, captioned CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to manipulate the market for U.S. government-sponsored agencies bonds. Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19 Civ. 725 (M.D. La.) (Dick, C.J.).

In 2018, a putative class action was filed against Citigroup, CGMI, Citigroup Financial Products Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., Citibanamex, Grupo Banamex and other banks, captioned IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants colluded in the Mexican sovereign bond market. In September 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Citibanamex and other market makers in the Mexican sovereign bond market. Plaintiffs no longer assert any claims against Citigroup and any other Citi affiliates. The amended complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices in the Mexican sovereign bond market from January 1, 2006 to April 19, 2017, and asserts antitrust and unjust enrichment claims, and seek treble damages, restitution and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning this consolidated action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 18 Civ. 2830 (S.D.N.Y.) (Oetken, J.).

Certain Citigroup affiliates (along with numerous other parties) 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. The actions were consolidated as IN RE TRIBUNE COMPANY FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE LITIGATION and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Several Citigroup affiliates, along with numerous other parties, were named as shareholder defendants and were alleged to have tendered Tribune stock to Tribune as a part of the buyout. In 2017, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the actual fraudulent transfer claim against the shareholder defendants, including the Citigroup affiliates. In July 2019, the litigation trustee filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Several Citigroup affiliates, along with numerous other parties, are named as defendants in certain actions brought by Tribune noteholders, which seek to recover the transfers of Tribune stock that occurred as a part of the leveraged buyout, as state-law constructive fraudulent conveyances. The noteholders’ claims were previously dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit withdrew its 2016 transfer of jurisdiction to the district court to reconsider its decision in light of a recent United States Supreme Court decision. In December 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an amended decision again affirming the dismissal. In January 2020, the noteholders filed a petition for rehearing.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated actions CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. and MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI, CGML and numerous other industry participants. The consolidated complaint asserts violations of the Sherman Act, as well as claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that defendants served as remarketing agents for municipal bonds called variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) and colluded to set artificially high VRDO interest rates. In July 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 19-CV-1608 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.) and 19-CV-2667 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).