SEC v. Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (2015)
Settled
Checked against the primary document on October 3, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In August 2015 the SEC settled with Citigroup Alternative Investments and Citigroup Global Markets over misstatements about the risks of two hedge funds sold to about 4,000 investors, with disgorgement of $139,950,239 and interest of $39,612,089. The case does not concern a benchmark.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 3-16757 |
| Date filed | 2015-08-17 |
| Date resolved | 2015-08-17 |
| Status | settled |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC ; Citigroup Global Markets Inc. |
| Also named elsewhere | Citigroup Global Markets Inc. |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- $140m
- Prejudgment interest
- $39.6m
- Total relief
- $180m
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and settled this proceeding on August 17, 2015 (Securities Act release 9893), without admission or denial by the respondents.
The order finds that between 2002 and 2008 the respondents raised about $2.9 billion from roughly 4,000 investors in the ASTA/MAT and Falcon hedge funds. Advisers and the fund manager described them as safe, low-risk bond substitutes and played down leverage and loss risk until the funds collapsed in 2008. The charges are Securities Act Section 17(a)(2) and (3) and Advisers Act provisions.
The record carried a benchmark-submission tag that nothing in the order supports, so it now has no technique tag. The respondents were censured and ordered to pay disgorgement of $139,950,239 and prejudgment interest of $39,612,089; the order imposes no separate penalty.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.