Citigroup (C)

IPO Antitrust Litigation

On June 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the securities law precludes application of the antitrust laws to the claims asserted by plaintiffs, effectively terminating the litigation.

IPO Antitrust Litigation

Beginning in March 2001, several putative class actions that were later consolidated into a single class action were filed in the Southern District of New York against CGMI and other investment banks, alleging violations of certain federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the allocation of shares in initial public offerings when acting as underwriters. A separate putative class action was filed against the same underwriter defendants as well as certain institutional investors alleging commercial bribery claims under the Robinson Patman Act arising out of similar allegations regarding IPO allocation conduct. On November 3, 2003, the District Court granted CGMI’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the antitrust case and the Robinson Patman complaint. Plaintiffs thereafter appealed the District Court’s order dismissing the two actions. On September 28, 2005, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision and ordered the cases remanded to the District Court. In December 2006, the United States Supreme Court granted the underwriter defendants’ petition for certiorari to review the Second Circuit’s decision and set oral argument for March 2007.

IPO Antitrust Litigation

        The underwriter defendants' motion in the Second Circuit to stay the issuance of the mandate remanding the cases to the district court pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was granted on March 9, 2006, after the writ of certiorari was filed on March 8, 2006.

IPO Antitrust Litigation

        Also filed in the Southern District of New York against CGMI and other investment banks were several putative class actions that were consolidated into a single class action, alleging violations of certain federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the allocation of shares in initial public offerings when acting as underwriters. A separate putative class action was filed against the same underwriter defendants as well as certain institutional investors alleging commercial bribery claims under the Robinson Patman Act arising out of similar allegations regarding IPO allocation conduct. On November 3, 2003, the district court granted CGMI's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the antitrust case and the Robinson Patman complaint. Plaintiffs thereafter

178

appealed the district court's order dismissing the two actions. In a decision dated September 28, 2005, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the cases to the district court. Before the cases could be remanded to the district court, the underwriter defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Second Circuit on January 12, 2006. The underwriter defendants have filed a motion in the Second Circuit to stay the issuance of the mandate remanding the cases to the district court pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. That motion remains pending.

IPO Antitrust Litigation

        On September 28, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ANTITRUST LITIGATION vacated the district court's order dismissing these actions and remanded for further proceedings.