Citibank 2014 Annual Report Download - page 312

295
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, moved
to dismiss all of these actions. On January 28, 2015, the court issued an
opinion and order denying the motion as to the IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE
BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION plaintiffs, but dismissing
the claims of the SIMMTECH and LARSEN plaintiffs in their entirety on the
grounds that their federal claims were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvements Act and their state claims had an insufficient nexus to New
York. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789, 13 Civ. 7953, and 14 Civ.
1364 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).
Additionally, Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., as well as numerous other
foreign exchange dealers, are named as defendants in a putative class
action captioned TAYLOR v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors that transacted
in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/or options on
foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges, alleging that the
putative class was harmed as a result of the defendants’ manipulation of the
foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Commodity
Exchange Act and federal antitrust claims. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 1:15-cv-1350 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).
Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and
Other Matters
Regulatory Actions: Government agencies in the U.S., including the
Department of Justice, the CFTC, and a consortium of state attorneys general,
as well as agencies in other jurisdictions, including the Swiss Competition
Commission, are conducting investigations or making inquiries regarding
submissions made by panel banks to bodies that publish various interbank
offered rates and other benchmark rates. As members of a number of such
panels, Citigroup subsidiaries have received requests for information and
documents. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigations and inquiries
and is responding to the requests.
Antitrust and Other Litigation: Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along
with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel banks, are defendants in a
multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL).
Following motion practice, consolidated amended complaints were filed on
behalf of two separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) OTC purchasers of
derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-
traded derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR. Each of these putative
classes alleges that the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress USD
LIBOR: (i) OTC purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for
unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and, (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments
assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman Act
and for unjust enrichment. Individual actions commenced by various
Charles Schwab entities also were consolidated into the MDL proceeding.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused
by the alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman Act.
The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.
Additional actions have been consolidated in the MDL proceeding,
including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of putative classes of, community
and other banks, savings and loans institutions, credit unions, municipalities
and purchasers and holders of LIBOR-linked financial products; and,
(ii) lawsuits filed by putative classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage
borrowers. The plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks artificially
suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law and seek compensatory
and other damages.
Additional information relating to these actions is publicly available
in court filings under the following docket numbers: 12 Civ. 4205; 12 Civ.
5723; 12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056; 12 Civ. 6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ.
346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13 Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13 Civ. 2262,
13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018; 13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146 (Buchwald, J.);
12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.); 12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.);
12 Civ. 10903 (C.D. Cal.) (Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino,
J.); 13 Civ. 62 (C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.);
13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D. Cal.) (Laporte, J.); 13 Civ.
122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ. 334, 13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J);
13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.) (Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.);
13 Civ. 1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt, J.);
13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D. Cal.) (Chesney,
J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ. 4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.);
and 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas, J.)
On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition
for a writ of certiorari in GELBOIM, ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP.,
ET AL. with respect to the dismissal by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit of an appeal by the plaintiff class of indirect OTC
purchasers of U.S. debt securities. On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court
ruled that, contrary to the Second Circuit’s opinion, the plaintiffs had a right
to appeal, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for consideration
of the plaintiffs’ appeal on the merits. Additional information concerning
this appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers
13-3565 (2d Cir.), 13-3636 (2d Cir.), and 13-1174 (U.S.).
Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other USD LIBOR panel
banks, also are named as defendants in an individual action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on February 13, 2013, captioned 7 WEST 57th STREET REALTY CO. v.
CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant panel
banks manipulated USD LIBOR to keep it artificially high and that this
manipulation affected the value of plaintiffs’ OTC municipal bond portfolio
in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and federal RICO law. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by
statute, and declaratory relief. Additional information concerning this action
is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 981
(Gardephe, J.).