Citigroup's Sandy Weill Issues Additional Statement on Wall Street Journal Story.

Business Editors

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 13, 2002

Citigroup issued the memo below to its employees earlier today:

To: Senior Management

From: Sandy Weill

Date: November 13, 2002

Re: Today's News ----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have tried to keep you as well informed as possible so that you would know the facts and not be misled by rumors, speculation or smear campaigns. You know that we are moving on two paths at once: cooperating fully with regulatory investigations and aggressively implementing our own initiatives to strengthen our business practices. Consistent with my practice of getting the facts to you directly, I wanted you to have the following information about the email that was reported on today in The Wall Street Journal.

-- It is sheer nonsense to suggest, as the email does, that I did anything to make Jack Grubman raise his rating on AT&T in the fall of 1999 in an effort to compromise Mike Armstrong's vote (part of a unanimous vote of our Board) several months later in connection with the departure of John Reed as Co-Chief Executive Officer. I would never attempt to manipulate a Board member's vote. Mr. Armstrong has categorically denied that his Board vote was in any way connected to the upgrade. Mr. Grubman has testified under oath that his statements linking these events were his own invention made to inflate his professional importance and make an impression on a colleague and friend.

-- The article wrongly states the email was "uncovered" and turned over to our Board by the New York State Attorney General's Office. The fact is that our team found the email and brought it to the attention of our regulators, and we quickly informed the Board of its existence as part of our ongoing effort to keep our Directors fully apprised of the regulatory review process.

-- A second part of the same email suggests my motivation for helping Jack Grubman's children with their application to pre-school was to influence Mr. Grubman to upgrade AT&T. This too is utter nonsense. I tried to help Mr. Grubman because he was an important employee who had asked for my help. It is therefore deeply upsetting that my intentions were so grossly distorted in this email.

-- Although my effort to help an employee's children is what led me to call the 92nd Street Y, the Y is a superb institution and our support is consistent with Citigroup's philanthropic efforts. Through a $200,000 per year, five-year commitment, we now fund an outstanding program of concerts, literary readings, dances and lectures that enhances the cultural life of New York. In the same time period, our company is on track to give away more than $400 million to other worthy causes.

I have said before, and will say again: I never told any analyst what he or she had to write - and I never would. Any suggestion that I did is just wrong. I did suggest to Mr. Grubman, in late 1998 or early 1999, that he take a fresh look at AT&T in light of the dramatic transformation of the company and the industry. But I always believed that Mr. Grubman would conduct his own research and reach independent conclusions that were entirely his own.

It is clear in this environment, where even demonstrably false information has a life all its own, we must come forward and set the record straight. It's important you know the facts as we move forward.