CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
CONTINGENCIES
CONTINGENCIES	23. CONTINGENCIES The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties. In accordance with ASC 450 (formerly SFAS 5), Citigroup establishes accruals for litigation and regulatory matters, including matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters. If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At March 31, 2013, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $5 billion at December 31, 2012, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K. As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate, and the estimates themselves, will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosure involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate. Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup's consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for litigation and regulatory matters, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters *Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters* Securities Actions: On April 8, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a fairness hearing in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.). On March 25, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement of IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $730 million in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2013. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.). Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions and Repurchase Claims: Additional complaints have been filed by purchasers of MBS and CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup. The aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending suits, including claims that have been dismissed but are still subject to appeal or otherwise not finally resolved, is approximately $12 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation is approximately $6 billion. On January 18, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the New York Supreme Court's order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss in LORELEY FINANCING (JERSEY) NO. 3 LTD., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ET AL. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 650212/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Oing, J.). On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition for review of the district court's October 15, 2012 order granting lead plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL. Plaintiffs allege federal securities law claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential Accredited Loans, Inc. CGMI is named as an underwriter defendant. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08 CV 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Baer, J.). On April 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants' appeal from the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss in FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. UBS AMERICAS, INC., ET AL., a parallel case to FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ET AL., FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 5201, 6188, 6196 and 7010 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.) and 12-2547-cv (2d Cir.). On April 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee, filed a complaint against Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., seeking to enforce contractual repurchase claims in connection with at least 1,267 loans that were securitized into CMLTI 2007-AMC3. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2843 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). *Abu Dhabi Investment Authority* On March 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied ADIA's petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Citigroup's cross-petition to confirm. On March 22, 2013, ADIA appealed from the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is pending. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12 Civ. 283 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.) and 13-1068-cv (2d Cir.). *Alternative Investment Fund—Related Litigation and Other Matters* In January 2013, a second amended class action complaint was filed in BEACH v. CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC, which added Citigroup and CSO Partners Limited (now named CCA Credit Europe Limited), among others, as defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.). *Auction Rate Securities—Related Litigation and Other Matters* On March 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of two putative class actions brought on behalf of purchasers and issuers of auction rate securities for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 10-0722-cv and 10-0867-cv (2d Cir.). *KIKOs* Prior to the devaluation of the Korean won in 2008, several local banks in Korea, including a Citigroup subsidiary (CKI), entered into foreign exchange derivative transactions with small and medium-size export businesses (SMEs) to enable the SMEs to hedge their currency risk. The derivatives had "knock-in, knock-out" features. Following the devaluation of the won, many of these SMEs incurred significant losses on the derivative transactions and filed civil lawsuits against the banks, including CKI. The claims generally allege that the products were not suitable and that the risk disclosure was inadequate. As of March 31, 2013, there were 90 civil lawsuits filed by SMEs against CKI. To date, 83 decisions have been rendered at the district court level, and CKI has prevailed in 64 of those decisions. In the other 19 decisions, plaintiffs were awarded only a portion of the damages sought. The damage awards total in the aggregate approximately $28.9 million. CKI is appealing the 19 adverse decisions. A significant number of plaintiffs that had decisions rendered against them are also filing appeals, including plaintiffs that were awarded less than all of the damages they sought. Of the 83 cases decided at the district court level, 61 have been appealed to the high court, including the 19 in which an adverse decision was rendered against CKI in the district court. Of the 21 appeals decided at high court level, CKI prevailed in 13 cases, and in the other eight plaintiffs were awarded partial damages, which increased the aggregate damages awarded against CKI by a further $10.2 million. CKI is appealing six of the adverse decisions to the Korean Supreme Court. *Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings* In the first quarter of 2013, Citibank, N.A. made demands on Barclays Bank, PLC, seeking payment under a contractual indemnity for losses suffered as a result of foreign exchange trading by Lehman Brothers Inc. in September 2008. *Terra Securities—Related Litigation* On March 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all remaining claims asserted by seven Norwegian municipalities. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information related to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 7058 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.) and 13-1188-cv (2d Cir.). Interbank Offered Rates—Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On March 29, 2013, the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an opinion and order in the multi-district litigation proceeding captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL) with respect to all actions consolidated into that proceeding as of June 29, 2012, dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, RICO claims, and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act claims to proceed. Additional information concerning the LIBOR MDL proceeding is publicly available in court filings under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.). Three additional actions have been commenced against Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks: (i) a putative class action on behalf of direct purchasers of bonds tied to USD LIBOR; (ii) an individual action brought by certain members of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange; and (iii) an individual action brought by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company. Plaintiffs in each of these actions allege that the panel bank defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company also asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers 1:13-cv-1456 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:13-cv-1700 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and 1:13-cv-342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.). In addition, various Charles Schwab entities that previously brought actions consolidated in the LIBOR MDL have commenced an additional individual action in California state court against Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks. The Schwab entities assert that the defendants manipulated LIBOR in violation of federal securities laws, as well as California state law and common law, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, punitive damages, and rescission of their contracts with the defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number CGC-13-531016 (Calif. Sup. Ct.). Separately, on April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL., which is not part of the LIBOR MDL, filed a Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff alleges that defendants, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Citibank Japan Ltd. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., manipulated Japanese Yen LIBOR and TIBOR in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act. The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims under these acts and for unjust enrichment on behalf of a class of persons and entities that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts between January 2006 and December 2010. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number 12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.). Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters On April 4, 2013, the Italian Supreme Court granted the appeal of the Milan Public Prosecutors and referred the matter to the Milan Court of Appeal for further proceedings concerning the administrative liability, if any, of Citigroup. Settlement Payments Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.

23. CONTINGENCIES

The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries, and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties.

In accordance with ASC 450 (formerly SFAS 5), Citigroup establishes accruals for litigation and regulatory matters, including matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to matters for which an accrual has been established may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters.

If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At March 31, 2013, Citigroup's estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $5 billion at December 31, 2012, as more fully described in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

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

For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for litigation and regulatory matters, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Securities Actions: On April 8, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a fairness hearing in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

On March 25, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order preliminarily approving the parties' proposed settlement of IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $730 million in exchange for a release of all claims asserted on behalf of the settlement class. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 23, 2013. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 07 Civ. 9522 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.).

Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDO Investor Actions and Repurchase Claims: Additional complaints have been filed by purchasers of MBS and CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup. The aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases at issue in the pending suits, including claims that have been dismissed but are still subject to appeal or otherwise not finally resolved, is approximately $12 billion, and the aggregate original purchase amount of the purchases covered by tolling agreements with investors threatening litigation is approximately $6 billion.

On January 18, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal from the New York Supreme Court's order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss in LORELEY FINANCING (JERSEY) NO. 3 LTD., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ET AL. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 650212/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Oing, J.).

On March 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition for review of the district court's October 15, 2012 order granting lead plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND V. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL LLC, ET AL. Plaintiffs allege federal securities law claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential Accredited Loans, Inc. CGMI is named as an underwriter defendant. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08 CV 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Baer, J.).

On April 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants' appeal from the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss in FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. UBS AMERICAS, INC.,

ET AL., a parallel case to FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ET AL., FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., and FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 Civ. 5201, 6188, 6196 and 7010 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.) and 12-2547-cv (2d Cir.).

On April 30, 2013, U.S. Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee, filed a complaint against Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., seeking to enforce contractual repurchase claims in connection with at least 1,267 loans that were securitized into CMLTI 2007-AMC3. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2843 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

Abu Dhabi Investment Authority

On March 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied ADIA's petition to vacate the arbitration award and granted Citigroup's cross-petition to confirm. On March 22, 2013, ADIA appealed from the court's order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is pending. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12 Civ. 283 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.) and 13-1068-cv (2d Cir.).

Alternative Investment Fund—Related Litigation and Other Matters

In January 2013, a second amended class action complaint was filed in BEACH v. CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC, which added Citigroup and CSO Partners Limited (now named CCA Credit Europe Limited), among others, as defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 12 Civ. 7717 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).

Auction Rate Securities—Related Litigation and Other Matters

On March 5, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of two putative class actions brought on behalf of purchasers and issuers of auction rate securities for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 10-0722-cv and 10-0867-cv (2d Cir.).

KIKOs

Prior to the devaluation of the Korean won in 2008, several local banks in Korea, including a Citigroup subsidiary (CKI), entered into foreign exchange derivative transactions with small and medium-size export businesses (SMEs) to enable the SMEs to hedge their currency risk. The derivatives had "knock-in, knock-out" features. Following the devaluation of the won, many of these SMEs incurred significant losses on the derivative transactions and filed civil lawsuits against the banks, including CKI. The claims generally allege that the products were not suitable and that the risk disclosure was inadequate.

As of March 31, 2013, there were 90 civil lawsuits filed by SMEs against CKI. To date, 83 decisions have been rendered at the district court level, and CKI has prevailed in 64 of those decisions. In the other 19 decisions, plaintiffs were awarded only a portion of the damages sought. The damage awards total in the aggregate approximately $28.9 million. CKI is appealing the 19 adverse decisions. A significant number of plaintiffs that had decisions rendered against them are also filing appeals, including plaintiffs that were awarded less than all of the damages they sought.

Of the 83 cases decided at the district court level, 61 have been appealed to the high court, including the 19 in which an adverse decision was rendered against CKI in the district court. Of the 21 appeals decided at high court level, CKI prevailed in 13 cases, and in the other eight plaintiffs were awarded partial damages, which increased the aggregate damages awarded against CKI by a further $10.2 million. CKI is appealing six of the adverse decisions to the Korean Supreme Court.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings

In the first quarter of 2013, Citibank, N.A. made demands on Barclays Bank, PLC, seeking payment under a contractual indemnity for losses suffered as a result of foreign exchange trading by Lehman Brothers Inc. in September 2008.

Terra Securities—Related Litigation

On March 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing all remaining claims asserted by seven Norwegian municipalities. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information related to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 09 Civ. 7058 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.) and 13-1188-cv (2d Cir.).

Interbank Offered Rates—Related Litigation and Other Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On March 29, 2013, the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, issued an opinion and order in the multi-district litigation proceeding captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL) with respect to all actions consolidated into that proceeding as of June 29, 2012, dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state antitrust claims, RICO claims, and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety, but allowing certain of the plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act claims to proceed. Additional information concerning the LIBOR MDL proceeding is publicly available in court filings under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.).

Three additional actions have been commenced against Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks: (i) a putative class action on behalf of direct purchasers of bonds tied to USD LIBOR; (ii) an individual action brought by certain members of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange; and (iii) an individual action brought by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company. Plaintiffs in each of these actions allege that the panel bank defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company also asserts claims for fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and, where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive relief. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under docket numbers 1:13-cv-1456 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), 1:13-cv-1700 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.), and 1:13-cv-342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.). In addition, various Charles Schwab entities that previously brought actions consolidated in the LIBOR MDL have commenced an additional individual action in California state court against Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as other USD LIBOR panel banks. The Schwab entities assert that the defendants manipulated LIBOR in violation of federal securities laws, as well as California state law and common law, and seek compensatory damages, restitution, punitive damages, and rescission of their contracts with the defendants. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number CGC-13-531016 (Calif. Sup. Ct.).

Separately, on April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in LAYDON V. MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL., which is not part of the LIBOR MDL, filed a Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiff alleges that defendants, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Citibank Japan Ltd. and Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., manipulated Japanese Yen LIBOR and TIBOR in violation of

the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act. The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims under these acts and for unjust enrichment on behalf of a class of persons and entities that engaged in U.S.-based transactions in Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts between January 2006 and December 2010. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under docket number 12-cv-3419 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.).

Parmalat Litigation and Related Matters

On April 4, 2013, the Italian Supreme Court granted the appeal of the Milan Public Prosecutors and referred the matter to the Milan Court of Appeal for further proceedings concerning the administrative liability, if any, of Citigroup.

Settlement Payments

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