Citibank 2015 Annual Report Download - page 306

288
the WM/Reuters rate (WMR), thereby causing the putative classes to suffer
losses in connection with WMR-based financial instruments. The plaintiffs
assert federal and state antitrust claims and claims for unjust enrichment,
and seek compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs in the putative class actions
filed a consolidated amended complaint.
Citibank, Citigroup, and Citibank Korea Inc., as well as numerous
other foreign exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative
class action captioned SIMMTECH CO. v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL.
(SIMMTECH) that was proceeding before the same court. The plaintiff
sought to represent a putative class of persons who traded foreign currency
with the defendants in Korea, alleging that the class suffered losses as a
result of the defendants’ alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserted
federal and state antitrust claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Additionally, Citibank and Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign
exchange dealers, were named as defendants in a putative class action
captioned LARSEN v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, ET AL. (LARSEN), that was
proceeding before the same court. The plaintiff sought to represent a putative
class of persons or entities in Norway who traded foreign currency with
defendants, alleging that the class suffered losses as a result of defendants’
alleged WMR manipulation. The plaintiff asserted federal antitrust and
unjust enrichment claims, and sought compensatory damages, treble
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Citigroup and Citibank, 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.).
Additional actions have been consolidated in the IN RE FOREIGN
EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION proceeding,
including lawsuits brought by, or on behalf of putative classes of, investors
that transacted in exchange-traded foreign exchange futures contracts and/
or options on foreign exchange futures contracts on certain exchanges. The
plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a result of the defendants’ alleged
manipulation of, and collusion with respect to, the foreign exchange market.
The plaintiffs allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman
Act, and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory damages, treble damages
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
On December 15, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement between the Citi defendants and classes of
plaintiffs who traded foreign exchange instruments in the spot market and
on exchanges. The proposed settlement provides for the Citi defendants to
receive a release in exchange for a payment of $394 million (which was
made on December 18, 2015) plus a separate payment of $8 million (which
is due upon final approval of the settlement by the court).
Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in
court filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 1350; 15 Civ. 2705;
15 Civ. 4230; 15 Civ. 4436; and 15 Civ. 4926 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).
On May 21, 2015, an action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., ET. AL was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign
exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of
“consumers and businesses in the United States who directly purchased
supracompetitive foreign currency exchange rates” from defendants for
their end use. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 11, 2015,
alleging violations of the Sherman Act, and seeking compensatory damages,
treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 9,
2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for possible
consolidation with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. 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.).
On June 3, 2015, an action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, ET AL. was brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, as well as numerous
other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative
class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of qualified
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans for whom a
defendant provided foreign exchange transactional services or authorized or
permitted foreign exchange transactional services involving a plan’s assets
in connection with its exercise of authority or control regarding an ERISA
plan. The plaintiff alleges violations of ERISA, and seeks compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory and injunctive relief. On
June 29, 2015, ALLEN was consolidated with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE
BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION for discovery purposes only.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).
In September 2015, putative class actions captioned BÉLAND v. ROYAL
BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL.
were filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as
numerous other foreign exchange dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants
conspired to fix the prices and supply of currency purchased in the foreign
exchange market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated
rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency. Plaintiffs
assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and the Quebec Civil Code