UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023
Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-52984-03, 333-131355, 333-171055-01, 333-208054, 333-224484, 333-261769
Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001108348
CITIBANK CREDIT CARD ISSUANCE TRUST*
(Issuing Entity in respect of the Notes)
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
| DELAWARE | NOT APPLICABLE | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of issuing entity) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No. of issuing entity) |
Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-80743-02, 333-171055-02, 333-208054-01, 333-224484-02, 333-261769-02
Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0000921864
CITIBANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST I
(Issuing Entity in respect of the Collateral Certificate)
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
| NEW YORK | NOT APPLICABLE | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of issuing entity) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No. of issuing entity) |
Commission file number of depositor and sponsor: 333-145220-03, 333-171055-03, 333-208054-02, 333-224484-01, 333-261769-01
Central Index Key Number of sponsor and depositor: 0001522616
CITIBANK, N.A.
(Exact name of depositor and sponsor as specified in its charter)
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | 13-5266470 | |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
388 Greenwich St New York, New York | 10013 | |
(Address of principal executive offices of depositor and sponsor) | (Zip Code) |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212) 559-1000
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class | Trading | Name of each exchange | ||
| NONE |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. ☒ Yes ☐ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). ☒ Yes ☐ No
[Rule 405 of Regulation S-T is not applicable.]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
| Large accelerated filer | ☐ | Accelerated filer | ☐ | |||
| Non-accelerated filer | ☒ | Smaller reporting company | ☐ | |||
| Emerging growth company | ☐ | |||||
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐ [Not Applicable]
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☒.
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter:
NOT APPLICABLE
| * | In accordance with relevant regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the depositor files annual and other reports concerning the Notes with the Commission on behalf of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I under the Central Index Key (CIK) number (0001108348) for Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust. |
PART I
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
| Item 1. | Business. | |
| Item 1A. | Risk Factors. | |
| Item 2. | Properties. | |
| Item 3. | Legal Proceedings. |
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
Not Applicable.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not Applicable.
Substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB: Significant Obligors of Pool Assets (Financial Information).
The primary asset of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust, a Delaware statutory trust formed on September 12, 2000 (the “issuance trust”) – and its primary source of funds for the payment of principal of and interest on the notes – is a collateral certificate issued by Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I (the “master trust”) to the issuance trust. The collateral certificate represents an undivided interest in the assets of the master trust. The master trust’s assets consist primarily of credit card receivables arising in a portfolio of revolving credit card accounts. The master trust, therefore, may be considered a significant obligor in relation to the issuance trust. Pursuant to Instruction 2.b. to Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the information required by Instruction J to Form 10-K in respect of the master trust has been disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 (“2023 Form 10-K”) in lieu of the information otherwise contemplated by Item 1112(b).
The pool assets held by the master trust do not include any significant obligors.
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit enhancement and other support, except for certain derivatives instruments (financial information).
Based on the standards set forth in Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.
2
Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain derivatives instruments (financial information).
Based on the standards set forth in Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal proceedings.
Sponsor, Depositor Issuing Entity or Service Litigation
Interchange Fee Litigation
Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citicorp LLC, together with Visa, MasterCard, and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards, as well as various membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade unreasonably through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Plaintiffs further allege violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Supplemental complaints also were filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa’s and MasterCard’s respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard’s initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.
In 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement. Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. The district court thereafter appointed separate interim counsel for a putative class seeking damages and a putative class seeking injunctive relief. Amended or new complaints on behalf of the putative classes and various individual merchants were subsequently filed, including a further amended complaint on behalf of a putative damages class and a new complaint on behalf of a putative injunctive class, both of which named Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citicorp LLC. In addition, numerous merchants have filed amended or new complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks, including Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., and Citicorp Payment Services.
In 2019, the district court granted the damages class plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of a new settlement with the defendants. The settlement involves the damages class only and does not settle the claims of the injunctive relief class or any actions brought on a non-class basis by individual merchants. The settlement provides for a cash payment to the damages class of $6.24 billion, later reduced by $700 million based on the transaction volume of class members that
3
opted out from the settlement. Several merchants and merchant groups have appealed the final approval order. On September 27, 2021, the court granted the injunctive relief class plaintiffs’ motion to certify a non-opt-out class. On March 15, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s final approval of the damages class settlement and remanded the case back to the trial court for administration of the settlement claims process. On January 8, 2024, the district court issued decisions on two pending motions for summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The district court also denied Mastercard’s motion for summary judgment as to Mastercard’s lack of market power. Other motions for summary judgment remain pending. On March 26, 2024, a settlement agreement between Visa and Mastercard and merchants to resolve the claims of the injunctive relief class was announced. The settlement is subject to approval by the court. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.).
Indenture Trustee and Master Trust Trustee Litigation
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, the indenture trustee and the master trust trustee (“DBTCA”), and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage- backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.
On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed an action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court alleging that DBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for 544 private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed the case from New York State Supreme Court and refiled two separate cases, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock California Case”). Pursuant to a settlement among the parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 6, 2018, and the BlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 11, 2019.
On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issue. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of the New York Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC
4
and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG (see description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice. On April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s summary judgment order.
On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 50 of the trusts at issue. On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for 1 of the 50 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 49 trusts at issue. Commerzbank’s second amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On January 29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. Discovery is ongoing.
On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017 IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to
5
four additional trusts. On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. Discovery is ongoing.
It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties as the trustee for the issuance trust and the master trust.
PART II
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
| Item 5. | Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. | |
| Item 7. | Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. | |
| Item 7A | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. | |
| Item 8. | Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. | |
| Item 9. | Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure. | |
Item 9A. | Controls and Procedures. |
6
Item 6. [Reserved]
Item 9B. Other Information.
None
Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.
Not Applicable.
PART III
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
| Item 10. | Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance. | |
| Item 11. | Executive Compensation. | |
| Item 12. | Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters. | |
| Item 13. | Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. | |
| Item 14. | Principal Accountant Fees and Services. |
Substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
Item 1119 of Regulation AB: Affiliations and certain relationships and related transactions.
Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB: Compliance with applicable servicing criteria.
Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas have been identified by the registrant as parties participating in the servicing function during the year ended December 31, 2023, with respect to Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I. Each of Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has delivered a report on an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such party (each, an “Assessment Report”) as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2023, which Assessment Reports are attached as exhibits 33.1 and 33.2, respectively, to this 2023 Form 10-K. In addition, each of Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by KPMG LLP and Ernst & Young LLP, respectively, each an independent registered public accounting firm, regarding its related Assessment Report. The Attestation Reports are attached as exhibits 34.1 and 34.2, respectively, to this 2023 Form 10-K.
7
No Assessment Report or related Attestation Report has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria identified in such Assessment Report as applicable to the related servicing participant.
Platform-Level Reports: Regulations of the SEC require that a servicing participant perform a “platform” level assessment for purposes of assessing servicing compliance. This means that the transactions covered in a report on an assessment of compliance should include asset-backed securities transactions involving such servicing participant that are backed by the same asset type. Further guidance from the SEC staff identifies additional parameters which a servicing participant may apply to define and further limit its platform. For example, a servicing participant may define its platform to include only transactions that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 (the effective date of Regulation AB) and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. Each servicing participant is responsible for defining its own platform, and each platform will naturally differ based on various factors, including the servicing participant’s business model, the transactions in which it is involved and the range of activities performed in those transactions.
The platform defined by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in its Assessment Report attached as an exhibit to this 2023 Form 10-K includes more transactions than those included in Citibank, N.A.’s Assessment Report, and the range of activities performed by Deutsche Bank for some of those additional transactions is broader than the range of activities it performs in the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust transactions. Accordingly, the servicing criteria addressed by Deutsche Bank in its Assessment Report include criteria in addition to the criteria applicable specifically to the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust transactions.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer compliance statement.
Citibank, N.A. has been identified by the registrant as the sole servicer with respect to the pool assets held by each of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I. Citibank, N.A. has provided a statement of compliance relating to servicing activities for the year ended December 31, 2023, which has been signed by an authorized officer of Citibank, N.A. and is attached hereto as exhibit 35.1.
8
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibit and Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)(1) Not Applicable.
(a)(2) Not Applicable.
(a)(3) Not Applicable.
(b) Exhibits
Exhibit Index
9
10
| (c) | Not Applicable. |
Item 16. Form 10–K Summary.
Not Applicable.
11
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
CITIBANK, N.A., as Depositor of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I | ||
| By: | /s/ Elissa Steinberg | |
| Elissa Steinberg | ||
| Vice President | ||
| (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) | ||
Dated: March 27, 2024
12
