The settlement includes persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Certificates (listed below) in the Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5 and/or the Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-WFHE2 from January 1, 2007 through October 31, 2007, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.
Trust 2007-AR5 Certificates; 1-A1A, 1-A2A, 1-A12B, 1-12IO, 1-A3A, 1-A3B, 1-3IO, 2-A1A, 2-A2A, 2-AB, 2-AIO, 1-B1, 1-B2, 1-B3, 1-B4, 1-B5, 1-B6, 2-B1, 2-B2, 2-B3, 2-B4, 2-B5, 2-B6, 2-BIO

Trust 2007-WFHE2 Certificates; A1, A2, A3, A4, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10

December 5, 2012 - The court approved the settlement, entered the orders approving the plan of allocation, the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

August 28, 2012 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.

August 16, 2012 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

December 23, 2010 - The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

September 23, 2010 - The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

May 24, 2010 - The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

April 6, 2010 - The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.

October 30, 2009 - The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

April 6, 2009 - The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

March 16, 2009 - The lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

January 23, 2009 - A lead plaintiff motion was filed.

October 6, 2008 - The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

September 25, 2008 - The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 14, 2008 order.

August 14, 2008 - The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand.

June 6, 2008 - The plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court.

April 7, 2008 - The case was transferred from the Supreme Court of the State of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

March 19, 2008 - An investor in shares of Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates and Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2007.

Citigroup Mortgage is a Delaware corporation formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning and transferring mortgage loan assets and selling interests in them. Citigroup Mortgage is an affiliate of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. The issuers of the various offerings are the Trusts identified in 1112, established by Citigroup Mortgage to issue billions of dollars worth of Certificates in 2007.

On December 12, 2006, Citigroup Mortgage and the Defendant Issuers caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement. The Certificates were supported by pools of mortgage loans. The Registration Statement represented that the mortgage pools would primarily consist of loans generally secured by liens on residential properties, including conventional and adjustable-rate mortgage loans.

Investors purchased the Certificates based upon three primary factors: return (in the form of interest payments), timing of principal and interest payments, and safety (risk of default of the underlying mortgage loan assets). The Registration Statement included false statements and/or omissions about: (i) the underwriting standards purportedly used in connection with the origination of the underlying mortgage loans; (ii) the maximum loan-to-value ratios used to qualify borrowers; (iii) the appraisals of properties underlying the mortgage loans; and (iv) the debt-to-income ratios permitted on the loans.

As a result, the Certificates sold to investors were secured by assets that had a much greater risk profile than represented in the Registration Statement. In this way, defendants were able to obtain superior ratings on the tranches or classes of Certificates, when in fact these tranches or classes were not equivalent to other investments with the same credit ratings.

By the Fall of 2007, the truth about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less absolute cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificate tranches or classes, ultimately downgrading many, As an additional result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by investors and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration Statement/Prospectus Supplements represented.