Settlement amount awarded to other party

  
Facilitation Trading Matters On January 28, 2022, the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) entered into a resolution with Citigroup Global Markets Asia Limited (CGMAL) of the SFC’s investigation into CGMAL’s equity sales trading desks in connection with facilitation trades. As part of the resolution, CGMAL agreed to pay a civil penalty of $44.6 million. Citigroup is cooperating with related investigations and inquiries by other government and regulatory agencies in Asia Pacific countries and elsewhere.  
Foreign Exchange Matters Regulatory Actions: Government and regulatory agencies in the U.S. and 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, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (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. On July 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 18-CV-10364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). In 2018, a group of institutional investors issued a claim against Citigroup, Citibank and other defendants, captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS GMBH AND OTHERS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, in the High Court of Justice 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 December 2021, the High Court ordered that the case be transferred to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the case number CL-2018-000840 in the High Court and under the case number 1430/5/7/22 (T) in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In 2015, a putative class of consumers and businesses in the U.S. 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 (later transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York). Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against 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-CV-2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15-CV-9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). In 2019, two applications, captioned MICHAEL O’HIGGINS FX CLASS REPRESENTATIVE LIMITED v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS and PHILLIP EVANS v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC AND OTHERS, were made to the U.K.’s Competition Appeal Tribunal requesting permission to commence collective proceedings against Citigroup, Citibank and other defendants. The applications seek 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 these actions is publicly available in court filings under the case numbers 1329/7/7/19 and 1336/7/7/19. In 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. In 2019, two motions for certification of class actions filed against Citigroup, Citibank 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. Citibank’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition for certification was denied on April 12, 2021. A motion for leave to appeal this decision is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Israel. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CA 29013-09-18.  
Hong Kong Private Bank LitigationIn 2007, a claim was filed in the High Court of Hong Kong claiming damages of over $51 million against Citibank. The case, captioned PT ASURANSI TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA TBK v. CITIBANK N.A., was dismissed in 2018 by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance on grounds that the claim was time-barred. Plaintiff has appealed the court’s dismissal. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number CACV 548/2018.  
Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation 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 for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege that defendants suppressed ICE LIBOR. Plaintiffs assert 298
