Business acquisition price LBO

  
action, captioned IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to inflate prices of European government bonds in primary market auctions and to fix the prices of European government bonds in secondary markets. Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and attorneys’ fees. On June 4, 2021, certain defendants, including CGMI and CGML, filed a pre-motion letter with the court requesting leave to move to dismiss the action. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19-CV-2601 (S.D.N.Y.) (Marrero, J.).  
Transaction Tax MattersCitigroup and Citibank are engaged in litigation or examinations with non-U.S. tax authorities, including in the U.K., India and Germany, concerning the payment of transaction taxes and other non-income tax matters.  
Tribune Company BankruptcyCertain 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 approximate $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 2019, the litigation trustee filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.CGMI was named as a defendant in a separate action, KIRSCHNER v. CGMI, in connection with its role as advisor to Tribune. In 2019, the court dismissed the action, which the litigation trustee appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.On August 20, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in the consolidated appeals in KIRSCHNER v. FITZSIMONS and KIRSCHNER v. CGMI. In the FITZSIMONS action, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the actual fraudulent transfer claim against the shareholder defendants, including the Citigroup affiliates. In the CGMI action, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against CGMI except for the claim of constructive fraudulent conveyance. As to that claim, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded to the district court for further proceedings on that claim and other claims that remain against certain other defendants that are not Citigroup affiliates. On November 29, 2021, on remand from the Second Circuit, the litigation trustee notified the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that it was voluntarily dismissing all claims against CGMI pursuant to a settlement agreement. The district court approved the voluntary dismissal on December 10, 2021. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 12 MC 2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.), 11 MD 2296 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.), 19-0449 (2d Cir.), and 19-3049 (2d Cir.).  
Variable Rate Demand Obligation LitigationIn 2019, the 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 November 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 2, 2021, the Board of Directors of the San Diego Association of Governments, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, filed a parallel putative class action against the same defendants named in the already pending nationwide consolidated class action. The two actions were consolidated and on August 6, 2021, the plaintiffs in the nationwide putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint, captioned THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, ACTING AS THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. On September 14, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in part. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 19-CV-1608 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.).  
Wind Farm LitigationsBeginning in March 2021, six wind farms in Texas commenced actions in New York and Texas state courts for declaratory judgments and breach of contract, asserting that the February 2021 winter storm in Texas excused their performance to deliver energy to Citi Energy Inc. (CEI) under the force majeure provisions of their contracts with CEI. In addition, the wind farms sought temporary restraining orders and/or preliminary injunctions, preventing CEI from exercising remedies under the contracts. Preliminary injunctions were denied with respect to five of the six wind farms: the New York court denied preliminary 302
