Citibank 2015 Annual Report Download - page 307

289
and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages, or disgorgement, on behalf of
putative classes of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into a
foreign exchange instrument or participated in a fund or investment vehicle
that entered into a foreign exchange instrument between January 1, 2003
and December 31, 2013. Additional information concerning these actions is
publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189-
152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.).
On September 16, 2015, an action captioned NEGRETE v. CITIBANK,
N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. Plaintiffs allege that Citibank, N.A. engaged in conduct in
connection with plaintiffs’ foreign exchange trading that caused them
losses. Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and negligence,
and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief.
On November 17, 2015, Citi filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On December 7, 2015,
the court granted Citi’s motion for a stay of discovery. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).
Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: In June 2015, Citigroup
was named as a defendant in IRA FOR THE BENEFIT OF VICTORIA SHAEV
V. CITIGROUP INC. The complaint was filed by a putative stockholder in
New York Supreme Court seeking to inspect Citigroup’s books and records
pursuant to Section 220 of Chapter 8 of the Delaware Corporations Law
with regard to various matters, including Citigroup’s participation and
activity in foreign exchange markets. On January 26, 2016, the court
granted Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket
number 652339/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and
Other Matters
Regulatory Actions: The CFTC and a consortium of state attorneys general,
as well as government and regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions, 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, 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). Consolidated
amended complaints were filed on behalf of two separate putative classes of
plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter (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 LIBOR MDL. 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 LIBOR 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 (S.D.N.Y.) (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.); 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D.
Cal.) (Vadas, J.); 15 Civ. 1334 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); and 15 Civ. 2973
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).
On August 4, 2015, the court in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION granted in part defendants’
motions to dismiss various individual actions that were previously stayed,
dismissing plaintiffs’ antitrust claims for failure to state a claim, and holding
that plaintiffs cannot pursue certain other claims based on lack of personal
jurisdiction or the operation of the applicable statute of limitations. The
court allowed certain of plaintiffs’ claims for common law fraud, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment and tortious interference to proceed. On October
8, 2015, the City of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental
Cooperation Authority amended their complaint in response to the court’s
August 4, 2015 decision. Additional information concerning these actions
is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).