UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(X) QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012

OR ( ) TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 or 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 000-26132

DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


New York		13-3729162
(State or other jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)

c/o Ceres Managed Futures LLC

522 5th Ave—14th Floor

New York, New York 10036

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(855) 672-4468

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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 X No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files).

Yes X No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):


Large accelerated filer		Accelerated filer		Non-accelerated filer X		Smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes No X

As of July 31, 2012, 13,272.4303 Limited Partnership Redeemable Units were outstanding.

DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P.

FORM 10-Q

INDEX


		Page Number
PART I – Financial Information:
Item 1.	Financial Statements:
	Statements of Financial Condition at June 30, 2012 (unaudited) and December 31, 2011	3
	Schedules of Investments at June 30, 2012 (unaudited) and December 31, 2011	4 – 5
	Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)	6
	Notes to Financial Statements (unaudited)	7 – 18
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	19 – 21
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	22 – 28
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	29

PART II – Other Information		30 – 52
Exhibits
31.1 Certification
31.2 Certification
32.1 Certification
32.2 Certification
101.INS XBRL Instance Document.
101.SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
101.CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
101.LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
1010.PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.

PART I

Item 1. Financial Statements

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Statements of Financial Condition


	(Unaudited) June 30, 2012		December 31, 2011

Assets:
Investment in Funds, at fair value	$	21,678,337	$	23,867,820
Cash		169,968		152,571

Total assets	$	21,848,305	$	24,020,391

Liabilities and Partners’ Capital:
Liabilities:
Accrued expenses:
Brokerage fees	$	100,138	$	110,093
Management fees		33,599		36,790
Other		110,168		90,567
Redemptions payable		142,056		257,831

Total liabilities		385,961		495,281

Partners’ Capital:
General Partner, 177.7568 unit equivalents outstanding at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011		282,050		291,459
Limited Partners, 13,348.5063 and 14,169.8681 Redeemable Units outstanding at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		21,180,294		23,233,651

Total partners’ capital		21,462,344		23,525,110

Total liabilities and partners’ capital	$	21,848,305	$	24,020,391

Net asset value per unit	$	1,586.72	$	1,639.65

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)


	Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
CMF Winton Master L.P.	$	5,933,173		27.64	%
CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.		4,049,873		18.87
CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P.		4,802,883		22.38
CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P.		6,401,443		29.83
CMF SandRidge Master Fund L.P.		490,965		2.29

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	21,678,337		101.01	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Schedule of Investments

December 31, 2011


	Fair Value		% of Partners’ Capital
Investment in Funds
CMF Winton Master L.P.	$	7,005,510		29.78	%
CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.		4,332,534		18.42
CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P.		5,385,866		22.89
CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P.		6,676,098		28.38
CMF SandRidge Master Fund L.P.		467,812		1.99

Total investment in Funds, at fair value	$	23,867,820		101.46	%

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital

(Unaudited)


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2012			2011			2012			2011
Investment Income:
Interest income	$	2,419		$	1,055		$	4,305		$	6,682


Expenses:
Brokerage fees including clearing fees		324,659			428,303			669,503			855,400
Management fees		103,844			136,431			212,505			273,441
Incentive fees		0			0			8,075			0
Other expenses		51,653			55,440			98,300			95,153

Total expenses		480,156			620,174			988,383			1,223,994

Net investment income (loss)		(477,737	)		(619,119	)		(984,078	)		(1,217,312	)

Trading Results:
Net gains (losses) on trading of commodity interests and investment in Funds:
Net realized gains (losses) on investments in Funds		462,565			475,696			894,456			1,535,287
Change in net unrealized gains (losses) on investment in Funds		(296,140	)		(742,058	)		(639,629	)		(1,494,691	)

Total trading results from investment in Funds		166,425			(266,362	)		254,827			40,596

Net income (loss)		(311,312	)		(885,481	)		(729,251	)		(1,176,716	)
Redemptions-Limited Partners		(450,482	)		(734,555	)		(1,333,515	)		(1,235,403	)

Net increase (decrease) in Partners’ Capital		(761,794	)		(1,620,036	)		(2,062,766	)		(2,412,119	)
Partners’ Capital, beginning of period		22,224,138			28,682,199			23,525,110			29,474,282

Partners’ Capital, end of period	$	21,462,344		$	27,062,163		$	21,462,344		$	27,062,163

Net asset value per unit (13,526.2631 and 15,273.4898 units outstanding at June 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively)	$	1,586.72		$	1,771.84		$	1,586.72		$	1,771.84

Net income (loss) per unit *	$	(23.32	)	$	(59.73	)	$	(52.93	)	$	(78.14	)

Weighted average units outstanding		13,709.5888			15,490.6555			13,988.7711			15,665.1499

*	Based on change in net asset value per unit.

See accompanying notes to unaudited financial statements.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

1. General:

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. (the “Partnership”) is a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on August 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. The sectors traded include currencies, energy, grains, indices, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, livestock, lumber, metals and softs. The commodity interests that are traded by the Funds, (as defined in Note 5 “Investment in Funds”), are volatile and involve a high degree of market risk. The Partnership commenced trading operations on January 12, 1994. The Partnership was authorized to sell up to 300,000 redeemable units of limited partnership interest (“Redeemable Units”) during its initial offering period. The Partnership no longer offers Redeemable Units for sale.

Ceres Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, acts as the general partner (the “General Partner”) and commodity pool operator of the Partnership. The General Partner is wholly owned by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Holdings LLC (“MSSB Holdings”). Morgan Stanley, indirectly through various subsidiaries, owns a majority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup Inc., indirectly owns a minority equity interest in MSSB Holdings. Citigroup Inc. also indirectly owns Citigroup Global Markets (“CGM”), the commodity broker for the Partnership. Prior to July 31, 2009, the date as of which MSSB Holdings became its owner, the General Partner was wholly owned by Citigroup Financial Products Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., the sole owner of which is Citigroup Inc.

As of June 30, 2012, all trading decisions are made for the Partnership by Willowbridge Associates, Inc. (“Willowbridge”), Winton Capital Management Limited (“Winton”), Graham Capital Management, L.P. (“Graham”), Eckhardt Trading Company (“Eckhardt”) and SandRidge Capital L.P. (“SandRidge”) (each an “Advisor” and collectively, the “Advisors”), each of which is a registered commodity trading advisor. Each Advisor is allocated a portion of the Partnership’s assets to manage. The Partnership invests the portion of its assets allocated to each of the Advisors indirectly through investments in the Funds.

The General Partner and each limited partner share in the profits and losses of the Partnership in proportion to the amount of Partnership interest owned by each, except that no limited partner is liable for obligations of the Partnership in excess of its capital contribution and profits or losses, if any, net of distributions.

The accompanying financial statements and accompanying notes are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair statement of the Partnership’s financial condition at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations and changes in partners’ capital for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011. These financial statements present the results of interim periods and do not include all disclosures normally provided in annual financial statements. You should read these financial statements together with the financial statements and notes included in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the year ended December 31, 2011.

The preparation of financial statements and accompanying notes in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, income and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities in the financial statements and accompanying notes. As a result, actual results could differ from these estimates.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

Due to the nature of commodity trading, the results of operations for the interim periods presented should not be considered indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year.

2. Financial Highlights:

Changes in the net asset value per unit for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 were as follows:


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2012			2011			2012			2011
Net realized and unrealized gains (losses)*	$	(12.16	)	$	(47.57	)	$	(30.45	)	$	(55.16	)
Interest income		0.18			0.07			0.31			0.42
Expenses**		(11.34	)		(12.23	)		(22.79	)		(23.40	)

Increase (decrease) for the period		(23.32	)		(59.73	)		(52.93	)		(78.14	)
Net asset value per unit, beginning of period		1,610.04			1,831.57			1,639.65			1,849.98

Net asset value per unit, end of period	$	1,586.72		$	1,771.84		$	1,586.72		$	1,771.84

*	Includes brokerage fees and clearing fees.

**	Excludes brokerage fees and clearing fees.


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2012			2011*****			2012			2011*****
Ratios to average net assets:***
Net Investment Income (loss)		(8.7	)%		(8.7	)%		(8.6	)%		(8.5	)%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		0.0	%******		—	%

Net investment income (loss) before incentive fees****		(8.7	)%		(8.7	)%		(8.6	)%		(8.5	)%

Operating expenses		8.7	%		8.7	%		8.7	%		8.5	%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		0.0	%******		—	%

Total expenses		8.7	%		8.7	%		8.7	%		8.5	%

Total return:
Total return before incentive fees		(1.4	)%		(3.3	)%		(3.2	)%		(4.2	)%
Incentive fees		—	%		—	%		(0.0	)%******		—	%

Total return after incentive fees		(1.4	)%		(3.3	)%		(3.2	)%		(4.2	)%

***	Annualized (other than incentive fees).

****	Interest income less total expenses.

*****

The ratios are shown net and gross of incentive fees to conform to current period presentation.

******

Due to rounding.

The above ratios may vary for individual investors based on the timing of capital transactions during the period. Additionally, these ratios are calculated for the limited partner class using the limited partners’ share of income, expenses and average net assets.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

3. Trading Activities:

The Partnership was formed for the purpose of trading contracts in a variety of commodity interests, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments. The Partnership’s investments are in other funds which trade these instruments. The results of the Partnership’s trading activities from its investment in the Funds are shown in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

The customer agreements between the Partnership/Funds and CGM gives the Partnership and the Funds the legal right to net unrealized gains and losses on open futures and exchange-cleared swaps and open forward contracts. The Funds net, for financial reporting purposes, the unrealized gains and losses on open futures and exchange-cleared swaps and on open forward contracts on the Funds’ Statements of Financial Condition as the criteria under Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 210 - 20, “Balance Sheet”, have been met.

Brokerage fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value on the last day of each month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions.

4. Fair Value Measurements:

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Investments. All commodity interests held by the Partnership (including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments), through the Partnership’s investment in the Funds, are held for trading purposes. The commodity interests are recorded on trade date and open contracts are recorded at fair value (as described below) at the measurement date. Investments in commodity interests denominated in foreign currencies are translated into U.S. dollars at the exchange rates prevailing at the measurement date. Gains or losses are realized when contracts are liquidated. Unrealized gains or losses on open contracts are included as a component of equity in trading account on the Funds’ Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains or losses and any change in net unrealized gains or losses from the preceding period are reported in the Funds’ Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Fair Value Measurements. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to fair values derived from unobservable inputs (Level 3). The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Management has concluded that based on available information in the marketplace, the Funds’ Level 1 assets and liabilities are actively traded.

GAAP also requires the use of judgment in determining if a formerly active market has become inactive and in determining fair values when the market has become inactive. Management has concluded that based on available information in the marketplace, there has not been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity in the Partnership’s and the Funds’ Level 2 assets and liabilities.

The Partnership and the Funds will separately present purchases, sales, issuances and settlements in their reconciliation of Level 3 fair value measurements (i.e., to present such items on a gross basis rather than on a net basis), and make disclosures regarding the level of disaggregation and the inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value for measurements that fall within either Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy as required under GAAP.

Effective January 1, 2012, the Partnership adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards” (“IFRS”). The amendments within this ASU change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements to eliminate unnecessary wording differences between GAAP and IFRS. However, some of the amendments clarify the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements and other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This new guidance did not have a significant impact on the Partnership’s financial statements.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

The Partnership and the Funds consider prices for exchange-traded commodity futures, forwards and options contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1). The values of non-exchange-traded forwards, swaps and certain options contracts for which market quotations are not readily available are priced by broker-dealers who derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2). Investments in funds (other commodity pools) with no other rights or obligations inherent within the ownership interest held by the Partnership are priced based on the end of the day net asset value (Level 2). The value of the Partnership’s investments in the Funds reflects its proportional interest in the Funds. As of and for the periods ended June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Partnership and the Funds did not hold any derivative instruments that were priced at fair value using unobservable inputs through the application of management’s assumptions and internal valuation pricing models (Level 3). There were no transfers of assets and liabilities between Level 1 and Level 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2012.


	June 30, 2012		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Assets
Investment in Funds	$	21,678,337	$	—	$	21,678,337	$	—

Net fair value	$	21,678,337	$	—	$	21,678,337	$	—


	December 31, 2011		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
Assets
Investment in Funds	$	23,867,820	$	—	$	23,867,820	$	—

Net fair value	$	23,867,820	$	—	$	23,867,820	$	—

5. Investment in Funds:

On November 1, 2004, the assets allocated to Winton for trading were invested in CMF Winton Master L.P. (“Winton Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership purchased 15,054.1946 units of Winton Master with cash equal to $14,251,586, and a contribution of open commodity futures and forward contracts with a fair value of $802,609. Winton Master was formed in order to permit commodity pools managed now or in the future by Winton using its Diversified Program, a proprietary, systematic trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of Winton Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Winton, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of Winton Master. The General Partner and Winton believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process.

On July 1, 2005, the assets allocated to Willowbridge for trading were invested in CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P. (“Willowbridge Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership purchased 12,259.3490 units of Willowbridge Master with cash equal to $11,118,119, and a contribution of open commodity futures and forward contracts with a fair value of $1,141,230. Willowbridge Master was formed in order to permit commodity pools managed now or in the future by Willowbridge using its Argo Trading System, a proprietary, systematic trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of Willowbridge Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Willowbridge, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of Willowbridge Master. The General Partner and Willowbridge believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

On April 1, 2006, the assets allocated to Graham for trading were invested in CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. (“Graham Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership purchased 14,741.1555 units of Graham Master with cash equal to $14,741,156. Graham Master was formed in order to permit accounts managed now and in the future by Graham using its K4D-15V Program, a proprietary, systematic trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of Graham Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Graham, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of Graham Master. The General Partner and Graham believe that trading through this structure promotes efficiency and economy in the trading process.

On April 1, 2008, the assets allocated to Eckhardt for trading were invested in CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P. (“Eckhardt Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership purchased 7,000.0000 units of Eckhardt Master with cash equal to $7,000,000. Eckhardt Master was formed in order to permit commodity pools managed now or in the future by Eckhardt using its Standard Program, a proprietary, systematic trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of Eckhardt Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by Eckhardt, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of Eckhardt Master. The General Partner and Eckhardt believe that trading through this structure should promote efficiency and economy in the trading process.

On June 1, 2009, the assets allocated to SandRidge for trading were invested in CMF SandRidge Master Fund L.P. (“SandRidge Master”), a limited partnership organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York. The Partnership purchased 1,370.9885 units of SandRidge Master with cash equal to $2,818,836. SandRidge was formed in order to permit accounts managed now and in the future by SandRidge using its Energy Program, a proprietary, discretionary trading system, to invest together in one trading vehicle. The General Partner is also the general partner of SandRidge Master. Individual and pooled accounts currently managed by SandRidge, including the Partnership, are permitted to be limited partners of SandRidge Master. The General Partner and SandRidge believe that trading through this structure promotes efficiency and economy in the trading process.

The General Partner is not aware of any material changes to the trading programs discussed above during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Winton Master’s, Willowbridge Master’s, Graham Master’s, Eckhardt Master’s and SandRidge Master’s (collectively, the “Funds”), trading of futures, forwards, swaps and options contracts, if applicable, on commodities is done primarily on U.S. commodity exchanges and foreign commodity exchanges. The Funds engage in such trading through commodity brokerage accounts maintained with CGM.

A limited partner of the Funds may withdraw all or part of its capital contribution and undistributed profits, if any, from the Funds in multiples of the net asset value per unit as of the end of any day (the “Redemption Date”) after a request for redemption has been made to the General Partner of the Funds at least three business days in advance of the Redemption Date. The units are classified as a liability when the limited partner elects to redeem and informs the Funds.

Management and incentive fees are charged at the Partnership level. All exchange, clearing, user, give-up, floor brokerage and National Futures Association fees (collectively, the “clearing fees”) are borne by the Funds. All other fees including CGM’s direct brokerage fees are charged at the Partnership level.

As of June 30, 2012, the Partnership owned approximately 0.8%, 10.5%, 4.5%, 31.5% and 0.2% of Winton Master, Willowbridge Master, Graham Master, Eckhardt Master and SandRidge Master, respectively. As of December 31, 2011, the Partnership owned approximately 0.9%, 7.4%, 4.2%, 32.6% and 0.2% of Winton Master, Willowbridge Master, Graham Master, Eckhardt Master and SandRidge Master, respectively. It is the Partnership’s intention to continue to invest in the Funds. The performance of the Partnership is directly affected by the performance of the Funds. Expenses to investors as a result of the investment in the Funds are approximately the same and redemption rights are not affected.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

Summarized information reflecting the total assets, liabilities and capital for the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	June 30, 2012
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Capital
Winton Master	$	791,958,992	$	9,940,873	$	782,018,119
Willowbridge Master		39,465,500		1,027,615		38,437,885
Graham Master		106,601,449		12,503		106,588,946
Eckhardt Master		20,384,680		45,679		20,339,001
SandRidge Master		326,279,460		6,966,403		319,313,057

Total	$	1,284,690,081	$	17,993,073	$	1,266,697,008


	December 31, 2011
	Total Assets		Total Liabilities		Total Capital
Winton Master	$	822,377,909	$	104,133	$	822,273,776
Willowbridge Master		58,685,838		62,005		58,623,833
Graham Master		127,567,600		44,426		127,523,174
Eckhardt Master		20,578,273		71,694		20,506,579
SandRidge Master		303,638,504		7,192,752		296,445,752

Total	$	1,332,848,124	$	7,475,010	$	1,325,373,114

Summarized information reflecting the net investment income (loss), total trading results and net income (loss) for the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	For the three months ended June 30, 2012
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Winton Master	$	(148,506	)	$	(36,389,384	)	$	(36,537,890	)
Willowbridge Master		(26,816	)		3,554,069			3,527,253
Graham Master		(106,234	)		(4,020,363	)		(4,126,597	)
Eckhardt Master		(38,970	)		861,530			822,560
SandRidge Master		(147,416	)		(1,485,490	)		(1,632,906	)

Total	$	(467,942	)	$	(37,479,638	)	$	(37,947,580	)


	For the six months ended June 30, 2012
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Winton Master	$	(298,650	)	$	(42,976,466	)	$	(43,275,116	)
Willowbridge Master		(51,109	)		1,474,001			1,422,892
Graham Master		(261,107	)		(958,694	)		(1,219,801	)
Eckhardt Master		(89,890	)		1,107,140			1,017,250
SandRidge Master		(379,660	)		48,083,724			47,704,064

Total	$	(1,080,416	)	$	6,729,705		$	5,649,289



	For the three months ended June 30, 2011
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Winton Master	$	(103,633	)	$	(11,692,933	)	$	(11,796,566	)
Willowbridge Master		(44,827	)		8,404,000			8,359,173
Graham Master		(236,860	)		(7,784,946	)		(8,021,806	)
Eckhardt Master		(62,034	)		(98,570	)		(160,604	)
SandRidge Master		(180,388	)		15,086,153			14,905,765

Total	$	(627,742	)	$	3,913,704		$	3,285,962


	For the six months ended June 30, 2011
	Net Investment Income (Loss)			Total Trading Results			Net Income (Loss)
Winton Master	$	(57,348	)	$	10,541,599		$	10,484,251
Willowbridge Master		(70,386	)		15,278,935			15,208,549
Graham Master		(383,116	)		(8,855,666	)		(9,238,782	)
Eckhardt Master		(116,690	)		(372,287	)		(488,977	)
SandRidge Master		(430,493	)		30,129,226			29,698,733

Total	$	(1,058,033	)	$	46,721,807		$	45,663,774

Summarized information reflecting the Partnership’s investment in, and the operations of the Funds is shown in the following tables.


	June 30, 2012					For the three months ended June 30, 2012
	% of Partnership’s Capital								Expenses				Net Income (Loss)
Investment	% of Partnership’s Capital			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Commissions		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective	Redemptions Permitted
Winton Master		27.64	%	$	5,933,173	$	(275,077	)	$	1,786	$	139	$	(277,002	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Willowbridge Master		18.87	%		4,049,873		346,214			1,153		2,038		343,023		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Graham Master		22.38	%		4,802,883		(183,026	)		4,415		811		(188,252	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Eckhardt Master		29.83	%		6,401,443		282,977			7,380		5,705		269,892		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
SandRidge Master		2.29	%		490,965		(2,244	)		159		121		(2,524	)	Energy Portfolio	Monthly

Total				$	21,678,337	$	168,844		$	14,893	$	8,814	$	145,137


	June 30, 2012					For the six months ended June 30, 2012										Investment Objective	Redemptions Permitted
	% of Partnership’s Capital			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Expenses				Net Income (Loss)
									Expenses
Investment									Brokerage Fees		Other
Winton Master		27.64	%	$	5,933,173	$	(318,981	)	$	3,425	$	326	$	(322,732	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Willowbridge Master		18.87	%		4,049,873		149,904			2,055		3,673		144,176		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Graham Master		22.38	%		4,802,883		(53,344	)		10,814		1,455		(65,613	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Eckhardt Master		29.83	%		6,401,443		367,059			18,559		11,513		336,987		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
SandRidge Master		2.29	%		490,965		114,494			519		263		113,712		Energy Portfolio	Monthly

Total				$	21,678,337	$	259,132		$	35,372	$	17,230	$	206,530


	December 31, 2011					For the three months ended June 30, 2011
	% of Partnership’s Capital								Expenses				Net Income (Loss)
Investment	% of Partnership’s Capital			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Commissions		Other		Net Income (Loss)			Investment Objective	Redemptions Permitted
Winton Master		29.78	%	$	7,005,510	$	(100,970	)	$	960	$	135	$	(102,065	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Willowbridge Master		18.42	%		4,332,534		45,320			1,299		563		43,458		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Graham Master		22.89	%		5,385,866		(272,718	)		9,112		573		(282,403	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Eckhardt Master		28.38	%		6,676,098		(31,797	)		14,530		5,985		(52,312	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
SandRidge Master		1.99	%		467,812		94,858			669		483		93,706		Energy Portfolio	Monthly

Total				$	23,867,820	$	(265,307	)	$	26,570	$	7,739	$	(299,616	)


	December 31, 2011					For the six months ended June 30, 2011										Investment Objective	Redemptions Permitted
	% of Partnership’s Capital			Fair Value		Income (Loss)			Expenses				Net Income (Loss)
									Expenses
Investment									Brokerage Fees		Other
Winton Master		29.78	%	$	7,005,510	$	70,432		$	1,921	$	366	$	68,145		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Willowbridge Master		18.42	%		4,332,534		240,831			2,310		1,306		237,215		Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Graham Master		22.89	%		5,385,866		(314,562	)		15,792		1,544		(331,898	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
Eckhardt Master		28.38	%		6,676,098		(130,394	)		28,397		11,732		(170,523	)	Commodity Portfolio	Monthly
SandRidge Master		1.99	%		467,812		180,971			1,907		900		178,164		Energy Portfolio	Monthly

Total				$	23,867,820	$	47,278		$	50,327	$	15,848	$	(18,897	)

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

6. Financial Instrument Risks:

In the normal course of business, the Partnership, through its investments in the Funds, is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk, including derivative financial instruments and derivative commodity instruments. These financial instruments may include forwards, futures and options, whose values are based upon an underlying asset, index, or reference rate, and generally represent future commitments to exchange currencies or cash balances, to purchase or sell other financial instruments at specific terms at specified future dates, or, in the case of derivative commodity instruments, to have a reasonable possibility to be settled in cash, through physical delivery or with another financial instrument. These instruments may be traded on an exchange or over-the-counter (“OTC”). Exchange-traded instruments are standardized and include futures and certain forward and option contracts. OTC contracts are negotiated between contracting parties and include swaps and certain forward and option contracts. Specific market movements of commodities of futures contracts underlying an option cannot be predicted. The purchaser of an option may lose the entire premium paid for the option. The writer, or seller, of an option has unlimited risk. Each of these instruments is subject to various risks similar to those related to the underlying financial instruments including market and credit risk. In general, the risks associated with OTC contracts are greater than those associated with exchange-traded instruments because of the greater risk of default by the counterparty to an OTC contract. The General Partner estimates at any given time approximately 4% to 12% of the Funds’ contracts are traded OTC.

The risk to the limited partners that have purchased Redeemable Units is limited to the amount of their share of the Partnership’s net assets and undistributed profits. This limited liability is a result of the organization of the Partnership as a limited partnership under New York law.

Market risk is the potential for changes in the value of the financial instruments traded by the Funds due to market changes, including interest and foreign exchange rate movements and fluctuations in commodity or security prices. Market risk is directly impacted by the volatility and liquidity in the markets in which the related underlying assets are traded. The Funds are exposed to a market risk equal to the value of futures and forward contracts purchased and unlimited liability on such contracts sold short.

Credit risk is the possibility that a loss may occur due to the failure of a counterparty to perform according to the terms of a contract. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss in the event of a counterparty default is typically limited to the amounts recognized in the Statements of Financial Condition and is not represented by the contract or notional amounts of the instruments. The Partnership’s/Funds’ risk of loss is reduced through the use of legally enforceable master netting agreements with counterparties that permit the Partnership/Funds to offset unrealized gains and losses and other assets and liabilities with such counterparties upon the occurrence of certain events. The Partnership/Funds have credit risk and concentration risk as CGM or a CGM affiliate is the sole counterparty or broker with respect to the Partnership’s/Funds’ assets. Credit risk with respect to exchange-traded instruments is reduced to the extent that through CGM, the Partnership’s/Funds’ counterparty is an exchange or clearing organization.

As both a buyer and seller of options, the Funds pay or receive a premium at the outset and then bear the risk of unfavorable changes in the price of the contract underlying the option. Written options expose the Funds to potentially unlimited liability; for purchased options, the risk of loss is limited to the premiums paid. Certain written put options permit cash settlement and do not require the option holder to own the reference asset. The Funds do not consider these contracts to be guarantees.

The General Partner monitors and attempts to control the Funds’ risk exposure on a daily basis through financial, credit and risk management monitoring systems, and accordingly, believes that it has effective procedures for evaluating and limiting the credit and market risks to which the Funds may be subject. These monitoring systems generally allow the General Partner to statistically analyze actual trading results with risk-adjusted performance indicators and correlation statistics. In addition, online monitoring systems provide account analysis of futures, forwards and options contracts by sector, margin requirements, gain and loss transactions and collateral positions.

The majority of these financial instruments mature within one year of the inception date. However, due to the nature of the Funds’ businesses, these instruments may not be held to maturity.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

7. Critical Accounting Policies

Use of Estimates. The preparation of financial statements and accompanying notes in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, income and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities in the financial statements and accompanying notes. As a result, actual results could differ from these estimates.

Partnership’s and the Funds’ Fair Value Measurements. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1) and the lowest priority to fair values derived from unobservable inputs (Level 3). The level in the fair value hierarchy within which the fair value measurement in its entirety falls shall be determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Management has concluded that based on available information in the marketplace, the Funds’ Level 1 assets and liabilities are actively traded.

The Partnership and the Funds consider prices for exchange-traded commodity futures, forwards and options contracts to be based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities (Level 1). The values of non-exchange-traded forwards, swaps and certain options contracts for which market quotations are not readily available are priced by broker-dealers who derive fair values for those assets and liabilities from observable inputs (Level 2). Investments in funds (other commodity pools) with no other rights or obligations inherent within the ownership interest held by the Partnership are priced based on the end of the day net asset value (Level 2). The value of the Partnership’s investments in the Funds reflects its proportional interest in the Funds. As of and for the periods ended June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Partnership and the Funds did not hold any derivative instruments that were priced at fair value using unobservable inputs through the application of the General Partner’s assumptions and internal valuation pricing models (Level 3).

Futures Contracts. The Funds trade futures contracts and exchange-cleared swaps. Exchange-cleared swaps are swaps that are traded as futures. A futures contract is a firm commitment to buy or sell a specified quantity of investments, currency or a standardized amount of a deliverable grade commodity, at a specified price on a specified future date, unless the contract is closed before the delivery date or if the delivery quantity is something where physical delivery cannot occur (such as the S&P 500 Index), whereby such contract is settled in cash. Payments (“variation margin”) may be made or received by the Funds each business day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the underlying contracts, and are recorded as unrealized gains or losses by the

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

Funds. When the contract is closed, the Funds record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed. Transactions in futures contracts require participants to make both initial margin deposits of cash or other assets and variation margin deposits, through the futures broker, directly with the exchange on which the contracts are traded. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on futures contracts are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

Forward Foreign Currency Contracts. Forward foreign currency contracts are those contracts where the Funds agree to receive or deliver a fixed quantity of foreign currency for an agreed-upon price on an agreed future date. Forward foreign currency contracts are valued daily, and the Funds’ net equity therein, representing unrealized gain or loss on the contracts as measured by the difference between the forward foreign exchange rates at the dates of entry into the contracts and the forward rates at the reporting date, is included in the Statements of Financial Condition. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on forward foreign currency contracts are recognized in the period in which the contract is closed or the changes occur, respectively, and are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

The Funds do not isolate the portion of the results of operations arising from the effect of changes in foreign exchange rates on investments from fluctuations from changes in market prices of investments held. Such fluctuations are included in net gain (loss) on investments in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

London Metals Exchange Forward Contracts. Metal contracts traded on the London Metals Exchange (“LME”) represent a firm commitment to buy or sell a specified quantity of aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, tin or zinc. LME contracts traded by the Funds are cash settled based on prompt dates published by the LME. Payments (“variation margin”) may be made or received by the Funds each business day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the underlying contracts, and are recorded as unrealized gains or losses by the Funds. A contract is considered offset when all long positions have been matched with a like number of short positions settling on the same prompt date. When the contract is closed at the prompt date, the Funds record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed. Transactions in LME contracts require participants to make both initial margin deposits of cash or other assets and variation margin deposits, through the broker, directly with the LME. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on metal contracts are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

Options. The Funds may purchase and write (sell) both exchange-listed and OTC options on commodities or financial instruments. An option is a contract allowing, but not requiring, its holder to buy (call) or sell (put) a specific or standard commodity or financial instrument at a specified price during a specified time period. The option premium is the total price paid or received for the option contract. When the Funds write an option, the premium received is recorded as a liability in the Statements of Financial Condition and marked to market daily. When the Funds purchase an option, the premium paid is recorded as an asset in the Statements of Financial Condition and marked to market daily. Net realized gains (losses) and changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on options contracts are included in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.

Notes to Financial Statements

June 30, 2012

(Unaudited)

Income Taxes. Income taxes have not been provided as each partner is individually liable for the taxes, if any, on its share of the Partnership’s income and expenses.

GAAP provides guidance for how uncertain tax positions should be recognized, measured, presented and disclosed in the financial statements and requires the evaluation of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in the course of preparing the Partnership’s financial statements to determine whether the tax positions are “more-likely-than-not” to be sustained by the applicable tax authority. Tax positions with respect to tax at the Partnership level not deemed to meet the “more-likely-than-not” threshold would be recorded as a tax benefit or expense in the current year. The General Partner concluded that no provision for income tax is required in the Partnership’s financial statements.

The Partnership files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The 2008 through 2011 tax years remain subject to examination by U.S. federal and most state tax authorities. The General Partner does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Subsequent Events. The General Partner of the Partnership evaluates events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are filed. The General Partner has assessed the subsequent events through the date of filing and determined that there were no subsequent events requiring adjustment of or disclosure in the financial statements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements. In October 2011, FASB issued a proposed ASU intended to improve and converge financial reporting by setting forth consistent criteria for determining whether an entity is an investment company. Under longstanding GAAP, investment companies carry all of their investments at fair value, even if they hold a controlling interest in another company. The primary changes being proposed by FASB relate to which entities would be considered investment companies as well as certain disclosure and presentation requirements. In addition to the changes to the criteria for determining whether an entity is an investment company, FASB also proposes that an investment company consolidate another investment company if it holds a controlling financial interest in the entity. The Partnership will evaluate the impact that this proposed update would have on the financial statements once the pronouncement is issued.

In December 2011, FASB issued ASU 2011-11, “Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities,” which creates a new disclosure requirement about the nature of an entity’s rights of setoff and the related arrangements associated with its financial instruments and derivative instruments. Entities are required to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. The objective of this disclosure is to facilitate comparisons between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. The disclosure requirements are effective for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. The Partnership should also provide the disclosures retrospectively for all comparative periods presented. The Partnership is currently evaluating the impact that the pronouncement would have on the financial statements.

Net Income (Loss) per unit. Net income (loss) per unit is calculated in accordance with investment company guidance. See Note 2, “ Financial Highlights”.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Partnership does not engage in sales of goods or services. Its only assets are its investments in the Funds and cash. The Funds’ only assets are their equity in trading accounts, consisting of cash and cash margin, net unrealized appreciation on open futures and exchange-cleared swaps contracts, net unrealized appreciation on forward contracts and commodity options, if applicable, and interest receivable. Because of the low margin deposits normally required in commodity futures trading, relatively small price movements may result in substantial losses to the Partnership, through its investments in the Funds. While substantial losses could lead to a material decrease in liquidity, no such illiquidity occurred during the second quarter of 2012.

The Partnership’s capital consists of the capital contributions of the partners, as increased or decreased by net gains or losses on trading and by expenses, interest income, redemptions of Redeemable Units and distributions of profits, if any.

For the six months ended June 30, 2012, Partnership capital decreased 8.8% from $23,525,110 to $21,462,344. This decrease was attributable to a net loss from operations of $729,251 coupled with the redemptions of 821.3618 Redeemable Units totaling $1,333,515. Future redemptions could impact the amount of funds available for investment in the Funds in subsequent periods.

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expense during the reporting period. Management believes that the estimates and assumptions utilized in preparing the financial statements are reasonable. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The Partnership’s/Funds’ significant accounting policies are described in detail in Note 7 of the Financial Statements.

The Partnership records all investments at fair value in its financial statements, with changes in fair value reported as a component of net realized gains (losses) and change in net unrealized gains (losses) in the Statements of Income and Expenses and Changes in Partners’ Capital.

Results of Operations

During the Partnership’s second quarter of 2012, the net asset value per unit decreased 1.4% from $1,610.04 to $1,586.72 as compared to a decrease of 3.3% in the second quarter of 2011. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain, through its investments in the Funds, before brokerage fees and related fees in the second quarter of 2012 of $166,425. Gains were primarily attributable to the trading by the Funds of commodity futures in U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, metals and softs and were partially offset by losses in currencies, energy, grains, and indices. The Partnership experienced a net trading loss, through its investments in the Funds before brokerage fees and related fees in the second quarter of 2011 of $266,362. Losses were primarily attributable to the trading by the Funds of commodity futures in energy, grains, livestock, metals and indices and were partially offset by gains in currencies, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates and softs.

The most significant gains were experienced in the global interest rate sector primarily during April and May, from long positions in European, U.S., and Australian fixed-income futures as prices advanced as Greece failed to form a unified government, increasing concern Europe’s debt crisis is worsening and spurring demand for the relative “safety” of government debt. Meanwhile, prices of European fixed-income futures continued to move higher as German manufacturing data weakened and China said its biggest banks may fall short of loan targets. Additionally, prices of global fixed-income futures rose amid signs of slowing economic growth in the U.S., and as China dampened speculation it would provide large-scale stimulus to boost growth. Within the metals sector, gains were experienced primarily during May from short positions in aluminum, zinc, and nickel futures as prices declined as a reduction of Spain’s credit rating fueled concern that Europe’s debt crisis will slow the economy and reduce demand for metals. Gains were also experienced within the soft commodities sector, primarily during May, from short positions in cotton futures as prices declined on mounting concern that Greece will leave the euro, roiling the global financial markets and eroding the outlook for textile production and demand for the fiber. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the quarter was offset by losses incurred within the stock indices sector, primarily during April and May, due to short futures positions in Pacific Rim and European equity index futures as prices rose on speculation the Chinese government will ease monetary policy and global central banks will take action to bolster economies amid Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. Within the energy sector, losses were incurred throughout the majority of the quarter from short positions in natural gas futures as prices rose to the highest level since January on forecasts of above-normal temperatures that may signal increased demand. Natural gas futures prices continued to rise after a U.S. government report showed a smaller-than-expected gain in U.S. supplies. Meanwhile, additional losses were incurred in this sector during May from long positions in gasoline, gas oil, and Brent crude futures as prices capped the biggest monthly drop in more than three years on speculation that slowing U.S. growth will reduce fuel demand. Losses were also incurred within the currency markets, primarily during June, from short positions in the British pound and Japanese yen versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the British pound and Japanese yen advanced as European Union leaders eased terms on loans to Spanish banks, taking a step towards resolving the region’s debt crisis. Elsewhere, losses were incurred from short positions in the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the Canadian dollar advanced. Within the agricultural sector, losses were incurred primarily during May and June from short positions in corn futures as corn prices climbed higher after inventories tumbled the most in 16 years, and on speculation that hot, dry weather will increase stress on crops in the U.S. Elsewhere, losses were incurred from short positions in wheat futures.

During the Partnership’s six months ended June 30, 2012, the net asset value per unit decreased 3.2% from $1,639.65 to $1,586.72 as compared to a decrease of 4.2% during the six months ended June 30, 2011. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain before brokerage fees and related fees for the six months ended June 30, 2012 of $254,827. Gains were primarily attributable to the trading by the Funds of commodity futures in energy, indices and livestock and were partially offset by losses in currencies, grains, U.S. and non-U.S. interest rates, metals and softs. The Partnership experienced a net trading gain before brokerage fees and related fees for the six months ended June 30, 2011 of $40,596. Gains were primarily attributable to the trading by the Funds of commodity futures in energy, U.S. interest rates, metals and softs and were partially offset by losses in currencies, grains, non-U.S. interest rates, livestock and indices.

Trading results in the soft commodities sector were relatively flat and had no material impact on Fund performance during the first six months of the year. The most significant gains were experienced within the global interest rate sector, primarily during April and May, from long positions in European, U.S., and Australian fixed-income futures as prices advanced as Greece failed to form a unified government, increasing concern Europe’s debt crisis is worsening and spurring demand for the relative “safety” of government debt. Gains were also experienced in the energy sector, primarily during February, from short positions in natural gas futures as prices dropped amid ample inventories and mild weather across the U.S. A portion of the Partnership’s gains during the first half of the year was offset by losses incurred within the currency sector, primarily during June, from short positions in the British pound and Japanese yen versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the British pound and Japanese yen advanced as European Union leaders eased terms on loans to Spanish banks, taking a step towards resolving the region’s debt crisis. Elsewhere, losses were incurred from short positions in the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar as the value of the Canadian dollar also advanced. Within the metals sector, losses were

incurred primarily during January and February from long positions in silver and gold futures as prices declined on speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve will refrain from offering additional stimulus as the economy recovers, eroding demand for the precious metals. Gold futures prices continued to decline after India, the world’s biggest bullion buyer, increased the tax on imports of precious metals for the second time this year. Within the global stock indices, losses were experienced primarily during April and May due to short futures positions in Pacific Rim and European equity index futures as prices rose on speculation the Chinese government will ease monetary policy and global central banks will take action to bolster economies amid Europe’s sovereign debt crisis. Within the agricultural sector, losses were incurred primarily during May and June, from short positions in corn futures as corn prices climbed higher after inventories tumbled the most in 16 years, and on speculation that hot, dry weather will increase stress on crops in the U.S. Elsewhere, losses were incurred from short positions in wheat futures

Commodity markets are highly volatile. Broad and rapid price fluctuations and rapid inflation increases the risks involved in commodity trading, but also increase the possibility for profit. The profitability of the Funds depends on the existence of major price trends and the ability of the Advisors to identify those price trends correctly. Price trends are influenced by, among other things, changing supply and demand relationships, weather, governmental, agricultural, commercial and trade programs and policies, national and international political and economic events, and changes in interest rates. To the extent that market trends exist and the Advisors are able to identify them, the Funds expect to increase capital through operations.

Interest income on 80% of the average daily equity maintained in cash in the Funds’ brokerage accounts was earned at a 30-day U.S. Treasury bill rate determined weekly by CGM based on the average non-competitive yield on 3 month U.S. Treasury bills maturing in 30 days. Interest income from investment in the Funds for the three months ended June 30, 2012 increased by $1,364, as compared to the corresponding period in 2011. The increase in interest income was primarily due to higher U.S. Treasury bill rates during the three months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the corresponding period in 2011. Interest income from investment in the Funds decreased by $2,377 for the six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the corresponding period in 2011. The decrease in interest income is primarily due to lower U.S. Treasury bill rates during the six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the corresponding period in 2011. Interest earned by the Partnership will increase the net asset value of the Partnership. The amount of interest income earned by the Partnership depends on the average daily equity in the Partnership’s and the Funds’ accounts and upon interest rates over which neither the Partnership/Funds nor CGM has control.

Brokerage fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value as of the end of each month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions. Accordingly, they must be compared in relation to the fluctuations in the monthly net asset values. Brokerage fees and clearing fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 decreased by $103,644 and $185,897, respectively as compared to the corresponding periods in 2011. The decrease in brokerage fees is due to lower average net assets during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the corresponding periods in 2011.

Management fees are calculated as a percentage of the Partnership’s adjusted net asset value as of the end of the month and are affected by trading performance and redemptions. Management fees for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 decreased by $32,587 and $60,936, respectively, as compared to the corresponding periods in 2011. The decrease in management fees is due to lower average net assets during the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 as compared to the corresponding periods in 2011.

Incentive fees are based on the new trading profits generated by each Advisor at the end of the quarter as defined in the management agreements among the Partnership, the General Partner and each Advisor. Trading performance for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012 resulted in incentive fees of $0 and $8,075, respectively. There were no incentive fees earned for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011.

In allocating the assets of the Partnership among the trading advisors, the General Partner considers each Advisor’s past performance, trading style, volatility of markets traded and fee requirements. The General Partner may modify or terminate the allocation of assets among the trading advisors and may allocate assets to additional advisors at any time.

As of June 30, 2012 and March 31, 2012, the Partnership’s assets were allocated among the trading Advisors in the following approximate percentages:


Advisor	June 30, 2012			March 31, 2012
Winton Capital Management Limited		27	%		28	%
Willowbridge Associates Inc.		19	%		18	%
Graham Capital Management L.P		22	%		23	%
Eckhardt Trading Company		30	%		29	%
SandRidge Capital L.P.		2	%		2	%

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

All of the Partnership’s assets are subject to the risk of trading loss through its investments in the Funds. The Funds are speculative commodity pools. The market sensitive instruments held by the Funds are acquired for speculative trading purposes, and all or substantially all of the Funds’ assets are subject to the risk of trading loss. Unlike an operating company, the risk of market sensitive instruments is integral, not incidental, to the Funds’ main lines of business.

The limited partners will not be liable for losses exceeding the current net asset value of their investment.

Market movements result in frequent changes in the fair value of the Funds’ open positions and, consequently in their earnings and cash balances. The Funds’ market risks are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including the level and volatility of interest rates, exchange rates, equity price levels, the market value of financial instruments and contracts, the diversification effects of the Funds’ open contracts and the liquidity of the market in which they trade.

The Funds rapidly acquire and liquidate both long and short positions in a wide range of different markets. Consequently, it is not possible to predict how a particular future market scenario will affect performance, and the Funds’ past performances are not necessarily indicative of their future results.

“Value at Risk” is a measure of the maximum amount which the Funds could reasonably be expected to lose in a given market sector. However, the inherent uncertainty of the Funds’ speculative trading and the recurrence in the markets traded by the Funds of market movements far exceeding expectations could result in actual trading or non-trading losses far beyond the indicated Value at Risk or the Funds’ experiences to date (i.e., “risk of ruin”). In light of the foregoing as well as the risks and uncertainties intrinsic to all future projections, the inclusion of the quantification in this section should not be considered to constitute any assurance or representation that the Funds’ losses in any market sector will be limited to Value at Risk or by the Funds’ attempts to manage their market risks.

Exchange maintenance margin requirements have been used by the Funds as the measure of their Value at Risk. Maintenance margin requirements are set by exchanges to equal or exceed the maximum losses reasonably expected to be incurred in the fair value of any given contract in 95%-99% of any one-day interval. Maintenance margin has been used rather than the more generally available initial margin, because initial margin includes a credit risk component, which is not relevant to Value at Risk.

Value at Risk tables represent a probabilistic assessment of the risk of loss in market risk sensitive instruments. The Advisors currently trade the Partnership’s assets indirectly in master fund managed accounts, over which they have been granted limited authority to make trading decisions. The first two trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments held by the Partnership indirectly, through its investments in the Funds. The remaining trading Value at Risk tables reflect the market sensitive instruments held by each Fund separately. There have been no material changes in the trading Value at Risk information previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s open positions by market category as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. As of June 30, 2012, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $21,462,344.

June 30, 2012


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Currencies	$	746,354		3.48	%
Energy		202,964		0.95	%
Indices		388,471		1.81	%
Grains		169,172		0.79	%
Interest Rates U.S.		299,651		1.40	%
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		453,495		2.11	%
Livestock		4,248		0.02	%
Lumber		130		0.00	%*
Metals		320,583		1.49	%
Softs		73,476		0.34	%

Total	$	2,658,544		12.39	%

*	Due to rounding.

As of December 31, 2011, the Partnership’s total capitalization was $23,525,110.

December 31, 2011


Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization
Currencies	$	742,291		3.16	%
Energy		201,599		0.86	%
Grains		122,245		0.52	%
Indices		264,489		1.12	%
Interest Rates U.S.		271,332		1.15	%
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		465,449		1.98	%
Livestock		2,817		0.01	%
Metals		245,117		1.04	%
Softs		104,913		0.45	%

Total	$	2,420,252		10.29	%

The following tables indicate the trading Value at Risk associated with the Partnership’s investments in the Funds by market category as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and the highest, lowest and average value during the three months ended June 30, 2012 and during the twelve months ended December 31, 2011. All open position trading risk exposures of the Partnership have been included in calculating the figures set forth below. There have been no material changes in the trading Value at Risk information previously disclosed in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

As of June 30, 2012, Winton Master’s total capitalization was $782,018,119, and the Partnership owned approximately 0.8% of Winton Master. As of June 30, 2012, Winton Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Winton for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2012


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2012
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	24,998,252		3.20	%	$	44,058,191	$	24,998,252	$	35,275,123
Energy		4,794,528		0.61	%		10,847,175		3,156,372		6,177,224
Grains		2,873,861		0.37	%		3,908,949		2,543,370		2,687,082
Indices		10,139,292		1.30	%		23,501,457		10,139,292		15,023,589
Interest Rates U.S.		12,945,075		1.65	%		13,610,375		10,991,025		12,271,133
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		19,436,916		2.48	%		27,870,158		19,436,916		22,378,136
Livestock		436,515		0.06	%		501,100		419,760		449,625
Lumber		16,250		0.00	%**		19,500		14,300		16,683
Metals		12,009,786		1.54	%		13,389,367		4,708,508		10,057,653
Softs		2,132,577		0.27	%		2,275,033		1,779,197		2,022,155

Total	$	89,783,052		11.48	%

*	Average of month-end Values at Risk.

**	Due to rounding.

As of December 31, 2011, Winton Master’s total capitalization was $822,273,776. The Partnership owned approximately 0.9% of Winton Master. As of December 31, 2011, Winton Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Winton for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2011


						Twelve months ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	19,312,483		2.35	%	$	19,312,483	$	6,398,762	$	12,470,587
Energy		1,525,274		0.19	%		4,524,046		1,245,529		2,842,674
Grains		2,535,708		0.31	%		4,371,245		540,481		2,326,464
Indices		6,526,149		0.79	%		17,629,694		3,776,392		10,297,535
Interest Rates U.S.		5,466,250		0.67	%		8,976,950		539,209		4,614,681
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		12,924,419		1.57	%		15,134,879		2,448,536		8,402,040
Livestock		262,550		0.03	%		340,400		42,650		213,377
Metals		6,253,557		0.76	%		7,869,347		3,994,864		5,990,862
Softs		1,583,804		0.19	%		2,456,982		329,218		1,207,483

Total	$	56,390,194		6.86	%

*	Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of June 30, 2012, Willowbridge Master’s total capitalization was $38,437,885. The Partnership owned approximately 10.5% of Willowbridge Master. As of June 30, 2012, Willowbridge Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Willowbridge for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2012


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2012
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	533,769		1.39	%	$	704,270	$	169,576	$	501,272
Energy		566,200		1.47	%		596,000		83,200		495,400
Grains		341,050		0.89	%		341,050		24,700		254,550
Interest Rates U.S.		203,300		0.53	%		718,900		30,000		364,400
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		515,078		1.34	%		2,225,295		22,037		1,100,855
Metals		684,000		1.78	%		990,000		50,000		558,000
Softs		96,900		0.25	%		200,000		89,000		160,300

Total	$	2,940,297		7.65	%

*	Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2011, Willowbridge Master’s total capitalization was $58,623,833. The Partnership owned approximately 7.4% of Willowbridge Master. As of December 31, 2011, Willowbridge Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the Portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Willowbridge for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2011


						Twelve months ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	1,519,874		2.60	%	$	3,114,825	$	191,750	$	1,146,326
Energy		283,500		0.48	%		4,681,000		144,000		1,513,100
Interest Rates U.S.		285,900		0.49	%		1,654,100		108,350		417,625
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		813,981		1.39	%		2,784,138		382,835		972,513
Metals		1,350,000		2.30	%		4,137,702		272,000		1,716,030
Softs		481,250		0.82	%		3,503,200		112,000		1,050,396

Total	$	4,734,505		8.08	%

*	Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of June 30, 2012, Graham Master’s total capitalization was $106,588,946. The Partnership owned approximately 4.5% of Graham Master. As of June 30, 2012, Graham Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Graham for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2012


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2012
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	3,034,533		2.85	%	$	3,227,588	$	2,264,960	$	3,079,626
Energy		1,532,873		1.44	%		3,043,684		635,732		1,518,404
Grains		879,550		0.82	%		1,212,104		705,478		788,998
Indices		3,943,012		3.70	%		5,553,526		3,943,012		4,491,992
Interest Rates U.S.		1,433,725		1.35	%		1,769,475		231,670		1,528,092
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		2,822,552		2.65	%		5,195,527		2,822,552		4,191,009
Livestock		16,800		0.02	%		19,200		2,400		18,000
Metals		2,422,720		2.27	%		2,422,720		1,687,454		2,065,188
Softs		634,019		0.59	%		901,259		634,019		731,969

Total	$	16,719,784		15.69	%

*	Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2011, Graham Master’s total capitalization was $127,523,174. The Partnership owned approximately 4.2% of Graham Master. As of December 31, 2011, Graham Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Graham for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2011


						Twelve months ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	5,181,686		4.06	%	$	14,715,746	$	1,934,690	$	8,500,010
Energy		2,114,289		1.66	%		2,114,289		430,473		1,224,336
Grains		1,611,500		1.27	%		1,783,300		325,891		633,165
Indices		4,513,393		3.54	%		11,180,261		924,448		3,873,039
Interest Rates U.S.		1,636,222		1.28	%		4,564,925		91,689		1,397,376
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		5,486,252		4.30	%		5,647,770		813,077		2,296,485
Livestock		10,800		0.01	%		127,950		2,400		35,984
Metals		2,117,496		1.66	%		2,219,604		616,825		1,237,109
Softs		987,729		0.77	%		987,729		161,005		421,227

Total	$	23,659,367		18.55	%

*	Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of June 30, 2012, Eckhardt Master’s total capitalization was $20,339,001. The Partnership owned approximately 31.5% of Eckhardt Master. As of June 30, 2012, Eckhardt Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Eckhardt for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2012


						Three months ended June 30, 2012
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	1,123,074		5.52	%	$	1,330,124	$	796,116	$	1,083,105
Energy		49,900		0.25	%		364,250		49,900		223,817
Grains		224,734		1.10	%		224,734		123,258		166,394
Indices		412,447		2.03	%		412,447		8,000		280,501
Interest Rates U.S.		349,925		1.72	%		443,175		343,025		378,708
Interest Rates Non -U.S.		371,115		1.82	%		923,168		371,115		645,514
Metals		138,611		0.68	%		138,611		60,073		123,976
Softs		56,223		0.28	%		64,200		5,800		42,074

Total	$	2,726,029		13.40	%

*	Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2011, Eckhardt Master’s total capitalization was $20,506,579. The Partnership owned approximately 32.6% of Eckhardt Master. As of December 31, 2011, Eckhardt Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to Eckhardt for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2011


						Twelve months ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Currencies	$	731,217		3.57	%	$	1,678,029	$	27,951	$	834,998
Energy		223,190		1.10	%		886,666		6,000		412,832
Grains		97,363		0.47	%		528,082		3,500		144,509
Interest Rates U.S.		405,700		1.98	%		1,698,650		3,900		330,777
Interest Rates Non-U.S.		179,363		0.87	%		1,114,087		9,616		264,205
Softs		41,600		0.20	%		131,208		10,463		66,776
Indices		49,666		0.24	%		1,132,389		5,600		466,488

Total	$	1,728,099		8.43	%

* Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of June 30, 2012, SandRidge Master’s total capitalization was $319,313,057. The Partnership owned approximately 0.2% of SandRidge Master. As of June 30, 2012, SandRidge Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to SandRidge for trading) was as follows:

June 30, 2012


						Three Months Ended June 30, 2012
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	10,229,638		3.20	%	$	10,229,638	$	1,793,614	$	6,068,146

Total	$	10,229,638		3.20	%

* Average of month-end Values at Risk.

As of December 31, 2011, SandRidge Master’s total capitalization was $296,445,752. The Partnership owned approximately 0.2% of SandRidge Master. As of December 31, 2011, SandRidge Master’s Value at Risk for its assets (including the portion of the Partnership’s assets allocated to SandRidge for trading) was as follows:

December 31, 2011


						Twelve months ended December 31, 2011
Market Sector	Value at Risk		% of Total Capitalization			High Value at Risk		Low Value at Risk		Average Value at Risk*
Energy	$	2,666,386		0.90	%	$	61,733,650	$	1,015,817	$	20,188,738

Total	$	2,666,386		0.90	%

*	Annual average of month-end Values at Risk.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

The Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership on the reports that it files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods expected in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Partnership in the reports it files is accumulated and communicated to management, including the President and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the General Partner, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure and appropriate SEC filings.

The General Partner is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate and effective process for establishing, maintaining and evaluating disclosure controls and procedures for the Partnership’s external disclosures.

The General Partner’s President and CFO have evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2012 and, based on that evaluation, the General Partner’s President and CFO have concluded that, at that date, the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

The Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting is a process under the supervision of the General Partner’s President and CFO to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP. These controls include policies and procedures that:

•

pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Partnership;

•

provide reasonable assurance that (i) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP and (ii) the Partnership’s receipts are handled and expenditures are made only pursuant to authorizations of the General Partner; and

•

provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Partnership’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

There were no changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting process during the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The following information supplements and amends the discussion set forth under Part I, Item 3. “Legal Proceedings” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as updated by the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

This section describes the major pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, to which CGM or its subsidiaries is a party or to which any of their property is subject. There are no material legal proceedings pending against the Partnership or the General Partner.

CGM (together with Citigroup Inc. and its other subsidiaries, “Citigroup”) (formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Inc.) is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 388 Greenwich St., New York, New York 10013. CGM is registered as a broker-dealer and futures commission merchant (“FCM”), and provides futures brokerage and clearing services for institutional and retail participants in the futures markets. CGM and its affiliates also provide investment banking and other financial services for clients worldwide.

There have been no material administrative, civil or criminal actions within the past five years against CGM or any of its individual principals and no such actions are currently pending, except as follows.

ENRON CORP.

Beginning in 2002, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees (along with, in many cases, other investment banks and certain Enron officers and directors, lawyers and/or accountants) were named as defendants in a series of individual and alleged class action lawsuits related to Enron.

The alleged securities class action and all remaining individual actions (other than actions brought as part of Enron’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding) were consolidated or coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The consolidated securities class action, brought on behalf of an alleged class of individuals who purchased Enron securities (NEWBY, ET AL. v. ENRON CORP., ET AL.), alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Citigroup agreed to settle this action on June 10, 2005. Under the terms of the settlement, approved by the District Court on May 24, 2006, $2.18 billion was paid to an escrow account for the benefit of the settlement class, which consists of all purchasers of publicly traded equity and debt securities issued by Enron and Enron-related entities between September 9, 1997 and December 2, 2001. The amount paid to settle this action was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves.

On August 27, 2007, the District Court for the Southern District of New York in IN RE ENRON CORP. reversed the rulings of the federal bankruptcy court that certain bankruptcy claims held by Citigroup transferees could be equitably subordinated or disallowed solely because of the alleged misconduct of Citigroup, and remanded for further proceedings.

On April 4, 2008, Citigroup announced an agreement to settle actions filed by Enron in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings seeking to recover payments to Citigroup as alleged preferences or fraudulent conveyances, to disallow or equitably subordinate claims of Citigroup and Citigroup transferees on the basis of alleged fraud, and to recover damages from Citigroup for allegedly aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Under the terms of the settlement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 24, 2008, Citigroup made a pretax payment of $1.66 billion to Enron, and waived certain claims against Enron’s estate. Enron also allowed specified Citigroup-related claims in the bankruptcy proceeding, including all of the bankruptcy claims of parties holding approximately $2.4 billion of Enron credit-linked notes (“CLNs”), and released all claims against Citigroup. Citigroup separately agreed to settle an action brought by certain trusts that issued the CLNs in question, by the related indenture trustee and by certain holders of those securities. The amounts paid to settle these actions were covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves.

On February 14, 2008, Citigroup agreed to settle CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY v. LAY, ET AL., an action brought by the Attorney General of Connecticut in connection with an Enron-related transaction; subsequently, the district court dismissed the case on March 5, 2008. The amount paid to settle this action was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves.

Over the first two quarters of 2008, Citigroup agreed to settle the following cases, brought by clients of a single law firm in connection with the purchase and holding of Enron securities, and naming Citigroup as a third-party defendant: (1) AHLICH v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P.; (2) DELGADO v. FASTOW; (3) PEARSON v. FASTOW; (4) ROSEN v. FASTOW; (5) BULLOCK v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P.; (6) CHOUCROUN v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P.; (7) GUY v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P. (8) ADAMS v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P.; (9) JOSE v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN, L.L.P.; and (10) ODAM, ET AL., v. ENRON CORP., ET AL. The amount paid to settle these actions was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves.

On May 23, 2008, Citigroup agreed to settle SILVERCREEK MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL. v. SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC. ET AL., and SILVERCREEK MANAGEMENT INC., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., two actions brought by investors in Enron debt securities. The amount paid to settle this action was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves. On May 30, 2008, the Southern District of Texas approved Citigroup’s settlement of WESTPAC BANKING CORP. v. CITIBANK, N.A., an action arising out of an Enron-related credit derivative transaction between Citibank and the plaintiff. The amount paid to settle this action was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves. On July 9, 2008, Citigroup agreed to settle PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON v. CITIGROUP, ET AL., an action brought by a utility in connection with alleged electricity overcharges by Enron. The amount paid to settle this action was covered by existing Citigroup litigation reserves.

A number of other individual actions have been settled, including, on January 21, 2009, the parties settled VANGUARD BALANCED INDEX FUND, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP, ET AL., an action filed in 2003 in Pennsylvania state court by certain investment funds, and asserting claims under state securities and common law, arising out of plaintiffs’ purchase of certain Enron-related securities. The case had been coordinated with NEWBY (discussed above) until it was remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June 2008. Pursuant to the settlement, the case was voluntarily dismissed on February 4, 2009.

On May 14, 2009, a settlement agreement was executed among the parties in DK ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P., ET AL. v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. and AVENUE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT II, L.P., ET AL. v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. On June 3, 2009, a settlement agreement was executed among the parties in UNICREDITO ITALIANO, SpA, ET AL. v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, ET AL. The three actions, which were consolidated and pending trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, were brought against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, and JPMorgan Chase and certain of its affiliates, in their capacity as co-agents on certain Enron revolving credit facilities. Pursuant to the settlements, the cases were dismissed with prejudice.

WORLDCOM, INC.

Beginning in 2002, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees were named as defendants—along with twenty-two other investment banks, certain current and former WorldCom officers and directors, and WorldCom’s former auditors—in a consolidated class action (IN RE WORLDCOM, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION) brought on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of WorldCom between April 29, 1999 and June 25, 2002. The class settlement became final in March 2006.

Following the resolution of all other individual actions by settlements and other resolutions, one individual action remains pending on appeal in the Second Circuit, HOLMES, et al. v. GRUBMAN, et al., which was brought by an individual and entities who opted out of the WorldCom securities class action settlement. On October 13, 2006, this action was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 3, 2009, the Second Circuit certified certain state law questions to be resolved by the Georgia Supreme Court, which has issued an opinion answering those questions. The Second Circuit has not yet decided the appeal. On June 23, 2010, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims in HOLMES v. GRUBMAN. Petitioners-plaintiffs submitted a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Second Circuit, affirming dismissal of the action.

RESEARCH

Customer Class Actions

In March 2004, an alleged research-related customer class action alleging various state law claims arising out of the issuance of allegedly misleading research analyst reports concerning numerous issuers was filed against certain Citigroup affiliates in Illinois state court. On October 13, 2011, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all class-action claims asserted in the action on the ground that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes those claims. The court granted leave for the alleged representative plaintiff to file an amended complaint asserting only his individual claims within 21 days. An amended complaint was not filed within the 21-day period. The alleged representative plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from the court’s October 13, 2011 order.

Global Crossing, Ltd.

On or about January 28, 2003, lead plaintiff in a consolidated alleged class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (IN RE GLOBAL CROSSING, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION) filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing and its subsidiaries, which named as defendants, among others, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees, asserting claims under the federal securities laws for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with Global Crossing in connection with published investment research. On March 22, 2004, lead plaintiff amended its consolidated complaint to add claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Asia Global Crossing. The added claims asserted causes of action under the federal securities laws and common law in connection with CGM’s research reports about Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing and for CGM’s roles as an investment banker for Global Crossing and as an underwriter in the Global Crossing and Asia Global Crossing offerings. The Citigroup-Related Defendants moved to dismiss all of the claims against them on July 2, 2004. The plaintiffs and the Citigroup-Related Defendants entered into a settlement agreement that was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 8, 2005, and was finally approved on June 30, 2005. The amount to be paid in settlement is covered by existing litigation reserves.

In addition, on or about January 27, 2004, the Global Crossing Estate Representative filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York an adversary proceeding against Citigroup and several other financial institutions seeking to rescind the payment of a $1 billion loan made to a subsidiary of Global Crossing. The Citigroup-Related Defendants moved to dismiss the latter action on May 28, 2004, which motion remains pending. In addition, actions asserting claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to CGM Global Crossing research reports are pending in numerous arbitrations around the country. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that narrowed the pending claims. Citigroup has yet to respond to the amended complaint.

Telecommunications Research Class Actions

Beginning in May 2002, Citigroup, CGM and certain executive officers and current and former employees were named as defendants in a series of alleged class action lawsuits and arbitration demands by purchasers of various securities, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research. The Citigroup research analyst reports concerned seven issuers: AT&T Corp. (“AT&T”), Winstar Communications, Inc., Level 3 Communications, Inc., Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (“MFN”), XO Communications, Inc., Williams Communications Group Inc., and Focal Communications, Inc. These alleged class actions were assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated proceedings. The court consolidated these actions into seven separate proceedings corresponding to the seven issuers of securities involved.

On January 6, 2005, the district court granted in part and denied in part Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the claims against it in the MFN action, In re SALOMON ANALYST METROMEDIA LITIGATION. On June 20, 2006, the district court certified the plaintiff class in the MFN action. The District Court’s class certification decision is on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and oral argument was held in January 2008. On September 30, 2008, the district court’s class certification decision was vacated on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On October 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $35 million to members of the settlement class that purchased or otherwise acquired MFN securities during the class period; the settlement was preliminarily approved by the district court on November 19, 2008. On February 27, 2009, the district court approved the class action settlement, and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

CREDIT-CRISIS-RELATED LITIGATION AND OTHER MATTERS

Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising from the global financial credit and subprime-mortgage crisis that began in 2007. Such matters include, among other types of proceedings, claims asserted by: (i) individual investors and purported classes of investors in Citigroup’s common and preferred stock and debt, alleging violations of the federal securities laws; (ii) individual investors and purported classes of investors in, and issuers of, auction rate securities alleging violations of the federal securities and antitrust laws; (iii) counterparties to significant transactions adversely affected by developments in the credit and subprime markets; (iv) individual investors and purported classes of investors in securities and other investments underwritten, issued or marketed by Citigroup, including collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”), mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”), auction-rate securities (“ARS”), investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments, that have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis; (v) municipalities, related entities and individuals asserting public nuisance claims; and (vi) individual borrowers asserting claims related to their loans. These matters have been filed in state and federal courts across the country, as well as in arbitrations before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) and other arbitration associations.

In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, Citigroup continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests for information from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), FINRA, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice and subdivisions thereof, bank regulators, and other government agencies and authorities in connection with various formal and informal inquiries concerning Citigroup’s subprime and other mortgage-related conduct and business activities, as well as other business activities affected by the credit crisis. These business activities include, but are not limited to, Citigroup’s sponsorship, packaging, issuance, marketing, servicing, and underwriting of CDOs and residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) and its origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and foreclosure of residential mortgages.

On October 19, 2011, in connection with its industry wide investigation concerning CDO-related business activities, the SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding Citigroup’s structuring and sale of the Class V Funding III CDO transaction (“Class V”), which alleged that CGM negligently misrepresented key deal terms of the Class V CDO. On the same day, the SEC and Citigroup announced a settlement of the SEC’s claims, subject to judicial approval, and the SEC filed a proposed final judgment pursuant to which Citigroup’s U.S. broker-dealer CGM agreed to disgorge $160 million, and pay $30 million in prejudgment interest and a $95 million penalty. On November 28, 2011, the district court issued an order refusing to approve the proposed settlement and ordering trial to begin on July 16, 2012. On December 15 and 19, 2011, respectively, the SEC and CGM filed notices of appeal from the district court’s November 28 order. On December 27, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted an emergency stay of further proceedings in the district court, pending the Second Circuit’s ruling on the SEC’s motion to stay the district court proceedings during the pendency of the appeals. On March 15, 2012, the Second Circuit granted a stay of the district court proceedings pending resolution of the appeals.

Federal and state regulators, including the SEC, also have served subpoenas or otherwise requested information related to Citigroup’s issuing, sponsoring, or underwriting of MBS. These inquiries include a subpoena from the Civil Division of the Department of Justice that Citigroup received on January 27, 2012.

Subprime Mortgage–Related Litigation and Other Matters

Beginning in November 2007, Citigroup and a number of current and former officers, directors, and employees have been named as defendants in numerous complaints brought by Citigroup shareholders, investors, counterparties and others concerning Citigroup’s activities relating to subprime mortgages, including Citigroup’s exposure to CDOs, MBS), and structured investment vehicles, Citigroup’s underwriting activity for subprime mortgage lenders, and Citigroup’s more general involvement in subprime- and credit-related activities.

Securities Actions: Citigroup has been named as a defendant in four alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 19, 2008, these actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Citigroup common stock from January 1, 2004 through January 15, 2009. On November 9, 2010, the district court issued an opinion and order dismissing all claims except those arising out of Citigroup’s exposure to CDOs for the time period February 1, 2007 through April 18, 2008. Fact discovery is underway. Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged class’ alleged damages. During the alleged class period, as narrowed by the district court, the price of Citigroup’s common stock declined from $54.73 at the beginning of the period to $25.11 at the end of the period. (These share prices represent Citigroup’s common stock prices prior to its 1-for-10 reverse stock split, effective May 6, 2011.)

Citigroup and CGM have been named as defendants in two alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, but since transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In the consolidated action, lead plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of an alleged class of participants in Citigroup’s Voluntary Financial Advisor Capital Accumulation Plan from November 2006 through January 2009. On June 7, 2011, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and subsequently entered judgment. On November 14, 2011, the district court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend the judgment and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims on December 21, 2011.

On September 30 and October 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup entities, certain current and former directors and officers of Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of Citigroup notes (including CGM) were named as defendants in two alleged class actions filed in New York state court but since removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising out of forty-eight corporate debt securities, preferred stock, and interests in preferred stock issued by Citigroup and related issuers over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008. On December 10, 2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION, and lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. On January 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

On March 13, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 12, 2010, the district court issued an order and opinion granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court’s order, among other things, dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims under Section 11 of that Act. A motion for partial reconsideration of the latter ruling in pending. On September 30, 2010, the district

court entered a scheduling order in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION. Fact discovery has commenced. On March 11, 2011, lead plaintiffs in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION filed a motion seeking class certification. Plaintiffs have not yet quantified the alleged class’s alleged damages. Because of the preliminary stage of the proceedings, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this action or predict the timing of its eventual resolution.

Several institutions and sophisticated investors that purchased debt and equity securities issued by Citigroup and related issuers have also filed actions on their own behalf against Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries in the Southern District of New York and the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. These actions assert claims similar to those asserted in the IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and IN RE CITIGROUP INC. BOND LITIGATION actions described above. Collectively, these investors seek damages exceeding $1 billion.

Underwriting Actions. Certain Citigroup affiliates have been named as defendants arising out of their activities as underwriters of securities in actions brought by investors in securities of issuers adversely affected by the credit crisis, including AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ambac and Lehman, among others. These matters are in various stages of litigation. As a general matter, issuers indemnify underwriters in connection with such claims. In certain of these matters, however, Citigroup affiliates are not being indemnified or may in the future cease to be indemnified because of the financial condition of the issuer.

On September 28, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a stipulation of settlement with the underwriter defendants in IN RE AMBAC FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION and judgment was entered. A member of the settlement class has appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 22, 2011, the underwriter defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.

Discrimination in Lending Actions. Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights Act. The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., ET AL., was filed against one of Citigroup’s affiliates in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In each action, defendants’ motions to dismiss have been denied. On September 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendant CitiMortgage’s motion for summary judgment and granted its motion to strike the jury demand.

Counterparty and Investor Actions. Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in actions brought in various state and federal courts, as well as in arbitrations, by counterparties and investors that claim to have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis. Those actions include claims asserted by investors in CDO-related

transactions, including Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc., which filed a lawsuit in Minnesota state court on October 26, 2011, alleging misstatements in connection with the sale of CDO securities. Additional actions asserting claims related to investments or participation in CDO-related transactions may be filed in the future.

Ambac. Counterparties to transactions involving CDOs, SIVs, credit default swaps (“CDS”), and other instruments related to investments in mortgage-backed securities have sued Citigroup on a variety of theories. On August 3, 2009, one such counterparty filed an action—AMBAC CREDIT PRODUCTS, LLC v. CITIGROUP INC., et al.—in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, alleging various claims including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with Citigroup’s purchase of CDS from Ambac as credit protection for a $1.95 billion super-senior tranche of a CDO structured by Citigroup, the underlying assets of which allegedly included subprime mortgage-backed securities. Ambac alleges, among other things, that Citigroup misrepresented the nature of the risks that were being transferred. On October 7, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 7, 2010, in connection with a global settlement agreement between Ambac and Citigroup, the parties stipulated to a discontinuation with prejudice.

In August 2011, two Saudi nationals and related entities commenced a FINRA arbitration against CGM alleging $380 million in losses resulting from certain options trades referencing a portfolio of hedge funds and certain credit facilities collateralized by a private equity portfolio. CGM did not serve as the counterparty or credit facility provider in these transactions. In September 2011, CGM commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to enjoin the arbitration. Simultaneously with that filing, the Citigroup entities that served as the counterparty or credit facility provider to the transactions commenced actions in London and Switzerland for declaratory judgments of no liability.

RMBS Litigation and Other Matters

During the period 2005 through 2008, Citigroup affiliates (including both S&B and Consumer mortgage entities) sponsored approximately $91 billion in private-label mortgage-backed securitization transactions, of which approximately $35 billion remained outstanding at September 30, 2011. Losses to date on these issuances are estimated to be approximately $9.3 billion. From time to time, investors or other parties to such securitizations have contended, or may in the future contend, that Citigroup affiliates involved in the securitizations are responsible for such losses because of misstatements or omissions in connection with the issuance and underwriting of the securities, breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the underlying mortgage loans, or for other reasons. Beginning in July 2010, several investors, including Cambridge Place Investment Management, The Charles Schwab Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Allstate Insurance Company, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston, the Union Central Life Insurance Co., Ameritas Life Insurance Corp., and Acacia Life Insurance Co. and affiliated entities have filed lawsuits against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates alleging actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the issuance and underwriting

of residential mortgage-backed securities. As a general matter, plaintiffs in these actions are seeking rescission of their investments or other damages. These actions, which are in their early procedural stages, allege claims against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates in connection with approximately $1.5 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities. Because these proceedings are in their preliminary stages, Citigroup cannot at this time estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these actions or predict the timing of their eventual resolution. Other purchasers of MBS or CDOs sold or underwritten by Citigroup affiliates have threatened to file lawsuits asserting similar claims, some of which Citigroup has agreed to toll pending further discussions with these investors.

On July 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF INDIANAPOLIS v. BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., ET AL., which no longer names Citigroup or any of its affiliates as defendants.

On September 2, 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) filed four lawsuits against Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries alleging actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the issuance and/or underwriting of RMBS. The FHFA has asserted similar claims against numerous other financial institutions. The FHFA seeks rescission of investments made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and/or other damages.

On September 9, 2011, the Western & Southern Life Insurance Company and other entities filed an amended complaint against CGM, as well as other financial institutions, alleging actionable misstatements or omissions in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. In addition, other purchasers of residential mortgage-backed securities sold or underwritten by Citigroup affiliates have threatened to file lawsuits asserting similar claims, some of which Citigroup has agreed to toll pending further discussions with those investors.

Given the continued and increased focus on mortgage-related matters, as well as the increasing level of litigation and regulatory activity relating to mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities, the level of inquiries and assertions respecting securitizations may further increase. These inquiries and assertions could lead to actual claims for breaches of representations and warranties, or to litigation relating to such breaches or other matters.

Auction Rate Securities-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in numerous actions and proceedings brought by Citigroup shareholders and customers concerning ARS. In addition to those matters described below, these have included, among others, numerous arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its subsidiaries seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS, which are in various stages of proceedings, and a derivative action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors, which has been dismissed. A committee of Citigroup’s Board of Directors is reviewing a demand sent to the Board following the dismissal of the derivative action.

Securities Actions. Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup, CGM and their affiliates and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees, have been named as defendants in several individual and alleged class action lawsuits related to ARS. These have included, among others: (i) numerous lawsuits and arbitrations filed by customers of Citigroup and its affiliates seeking damages in connection with investments in ARS; (ii) a consolidated alleged class action asserting claims for federal securities violations, which has been dismissed and is now pending on appeal; (iii) two alleged class actions asserting violations of Section I of the Sherman Act, which have been dismissed and are now pending on appeal; and (iv) a derivative action filed against certain Citigroup officers and directors, which has been dismissed. In addition, based on an investigation, report and recommendation from a committee of Citigroup’s Board of Directors, the Board refused a shareholder demand that was made after dismissal of the derivative action.

Hansen Beverage Co. v. Citigroup Inc., et al. On July 11, 2008, a complaint was filed against Citigroup, CGM and Smith Barney, alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act arising out of plaintiff’s investment in ARS. On September 22, 2008, the Citigroup defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted on October 10, 2008. A motion to reconsider the district court’s decision was denied on October 21, 2008. This action is currently stayed, pending arbitration.

Antitrust Actions. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. and RUSSELL MAYFIELD, ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL., are lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of ARS issuers and investors, respectively, against Citigroup, CGM and various other financial institutions. In these actions, plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising out of defendants’ alleged conspiracy to artificially restrain trade in the ARS market. On January 15, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in these actions. On January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed. The actions are now pending on appeal.

Governmental and Regulatory Matters. On August 7, 2008, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other state regulatory agencies, pursuant to which Citigroup agreed to offer to purchase at par ARS that are not auctioning from all Citigroup individual investors, small institutions (as defined in by the terms of the settlement), and charities that purchased ARS from Citigroup prior to February 11, 2008. In addition, Citigroup agreed to pay a $50 million fine to the State of New York and a $50 million fine to the other state regulatory agencies.

Citigroup and certain of its affiliates are also subject to formal and informal investigations, as well as subpoenas and/or requests for information, from various governmental and self-regulatory agencies relating to auction rate securities. Citigroup and its affiliates are cooperating fully and are engaged in discussions on these matters.

Arbitrations. In addition to the various lawsuits discussed above, several arbitrations are pending against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to ARS investments.

ASTA/MAT and Falcon-Related Litigation and Other Matters

ASTA/MAT and Falcon were alternative investment funds managed and marketed by certain Citigroup affiliates that allegedly suffered substantial losses during the credit crisis. The SEC is investigating the management and marketing of the ASTA/MAT and Falcon funds. Citigroup is cooperating fully with the SEC’s inquiry.

In addition, numerous investors in ASTA/MAT have filed lawsuits or arbitrations against Citigroup seeking recoupment of their alleged losses. Although many of these investor disputes have been resolved, others remain pending. In April 2011, a FINRA arbitration panel awarded two ASTA/MAT investors $54 million in damages and attorneys’ fees, including punitive damages, against Citigroup. In December 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered an order confirming the FlNRA panel’s award. Citigroup has filed a notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arbitrations: In addition to the various lawsuits discussed above, several arbitrations are pending against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates relating to ASTA/MAT investments. On April 11, 2011, a FINRA arbitration panel in Denver awarded $54 million in damages and attorneys’ fees, including punitive damages, to claimants Jerry Murdock Jr. and Gerald Hosier arising out of their alleged losses in the ASTA/MAT and other funds.

Governmental and Regulatory Matters. Citigroup and certain of its affiliates are subject to formal and informal investigations, as well as subpoenas and/or requests for information, from various governmental and self-regulatory agencies relating to the marketing and management of the Falcon and ASTA/MAT funds. Citigroup and its affiliates are cooperating fully and are engaged in discussions on these matters.

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

On July 6, 2003, an adversary proceeding was filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of Adelphia Communications Corporation against certain lenders and investment banks, including CGM, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp USA, Inc., and Citigroup Financial Products, Inc. (together, the “Citigroup Parties”). The complaint alleged that the Citigroup Parties and numerous other defendants committed acts in violation of the Bank Holding Company Act, the Bankruptcy Code, and common law. It sought an unspecified amount of damages. In November 2003, a similar adversary proceeding was filed by the Equity Holders Committee of Adelphia, asserting additional statutory and common law claims. In June 2004, motions to dismiss were filed with respect to the complaints of the two committees. Those motions were decided by the bankruptcy court, and were granted in part and denied in part. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the bankruptcy court’s decision. The Adelphia Recovery Trust (“ART”), which replaced the committees as the plaintiff in the action, filed an amended complaint on behalf of the Adelphia Estate, consolidating the two prior complaints; motions to dismiss the amended complaint and answers were filed. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The ART’s appeal to the Second Circuit from that partial

dismissal is pending. Before the district court, the parties are briefing summary judgment. On September 22, 2010, the ART agreed in principle to settle its claims against numerous pre-petition lenders and investment banks, including Citigroup, in the action entitled ADELPHIA RECOVERY TRUST v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., ET AL., 05 Civ. 9050 (S.D.N.Y.). The agreement in principle is subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court approval.

In addition, CGM is among the underwriters named in numerous civil actions brought to date by investors in Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia securities offerings between September 1997 and October 2001. Three of the complaints also assert claims against Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. All of the complaints allege violations of federal securities laws, and certain of the complaints also allege violations of state securities laws and the common law. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. In December 2003, a second amended complaint was filed and consolidated before the same judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2004, motions to dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were filed. In May and July of 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss several claims, based on the running of applicable statute of limitations, asserted in the alleged class and individual actions being coordinated under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. With the exception of one individual action that was dismissed with prejudice, the court granted the alleged class and individual plaintiffs leave to re-plead certain of those claims the court found to be time-barred. Without admitting any liability, CGM and numerous other financial institution defendants settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of $250 million, and the settlement was approved in November 2006. Two of the additional remaining individual complaints have been settled. Following settlements of the class action, which is pending appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain outstanding. The Second Circuit is considering whether the plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue. In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were granted in part and denied in part.

IPO SECURITIES LITIGATION

In April 2002, consolidated amended complaints were filed against CGM and other investment banks named in numerous alleged class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws (including Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) with respect to the allocation of shares for certain initial public offerings, related aftermarket transactions and damage to investors caused by allegedly biased research analyst reports.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. On October 13, 2004, the court granted in part the motion to certify class actions for six focus cases in the securities litigation. CGM is not a defendant in any of the six focus cases. In December 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court and held that the

classes could not be certified. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing in January 2007; that petition was denied, and the case was remanded to the lower court. Plaintiffs filed amended pleadings in August 2007 and a new motion for class certification in September 2007. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended pleadings in November 2007 and filed an opposition to the new motion for class certification in December 2007. On March 26, 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss the amended complaints. Following mediation, a settlement in principle was reached, subject to negotiation of definitive documentation and court approval. On June 10, 2009, the district court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of this matter and scheduling a hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement should be finally approved. In October 2009, the district court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement.

IPO ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Beginning in March 2001, several alleged class actions that were later consolidated into a single class action were filed in the Southern District of New York against CGM 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 alleged 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 CGM’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.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel that reversed the district court’s class certification decision denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. The companion petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the Second Circuit. 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.

WAGE & HOUR EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS

Numerous financial services firms, including Citigroup and its affiliates, were named in alleged class actions alleging that certain present and former employees in California were entitled to overtime pay under state and federal laws; were subject to certain allegedly unlawful deductions under state law; or were entitled to reimbursement for employment related expenses incurred by them. The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., sought damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class of California employees. Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGM on behalf of certain statewide or

nationwide alleged classes in (i) the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court. Without admitting any liability, CGM reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to court approval, to a nationwide settlement for up to approximately $98 million of various class actions asserting violations of state and federal laws relating to overtime and violations of various state laws relating to alleged unlawful payroll deductions. Additional alleged class action lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hour laws have been filed against various other Citigroup businesses.

MUTUAL FUNDS LITIGATION

Citigroup and certain of its affiliates were named in several class action litigations in various federal District Courts arising out of alleged violations of the federal securities laws, including the Investment Company Act, and common law (including breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment). The claims concern practices in connection with the sale of mutual funds, including allegations involving market timing, revenue sharing, incentive payments for the sale of proprietary funds, undisclosed breakpoint discounts for the sale of certain classes of funds, inappropriate share class recommendations and inappropriate fund investments. The litigations involving market timing have been consolidated under the Multi District rules in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “MDL action”), and the litigations involving revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these litigations generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, recessionary damages, injunctive relief, costs and fees. In the principal cases concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on December 15, 2004. Citigroup defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was substantially granted; a motion to dismiss the remaining claim was filed. Several derivative actions and class actions were also dismissed against Citigroup defendants in the MDL action (the class actions were dismissed with leave to replead state law claims of unjust enrichment). Issues in the mutual-fund industry continue to receive scrutiny by various government regulators and SROs. CGM reached an agreement in principle with the NYSE to settle a matter related to its market-timing practices prior to September 2003.

Several issues in the mutual fund industry have come under the scrutiny of federal and state regulators. Citigroup has received subpoenas and other requests for information from various government regulators regarding market timing, financing, fees, sales practices and other mutual fund issues in connection with various investigations. Citigroup is cooperating with all such reviews. Additionally, CGM has entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC with respect to revenue sharing and sales of classes of funds.

In May 2007, CGM finalized its settlement agreement with the NYSE and the New Jersey Bureau of Securities on the matter related to its market-timing practices prior to

September 2003. The allegations included failure to supervise trading of mutual fund shares and variable annuity mutual fund sub-accounts, failure to prevent market-timing by its brokers and failure to comply with applicable recordkeeping requirements. CGM neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing or liability, and paid $50 million in disgorgement and penalties.

FINRA SETTLEMENTS

On October 12, 2009, FINRA announced its acceptance of an Award Waiver and Consent (“AWC”) in which CGM, without admitting or denying the findings, consented to the entry of the AWC and a fine and censure of $600,000. The AWC includes findings that CGM failed to adequately supervise the activities of its equities trading desk in connection with swap and related hedge trades in U.S. and Italian equities that were designed to provide certain perceived tax advantages. CGM was charged with failing to provide for effective written procedures with respect to the implementation of the trades, failing to monitor Bloomberg messages and failing to properly report certain of the trades to the NASDAQ.

On May 22, 2012, FINRA announced its acceptance of an AWC in which CGM, without admitting or denying the findings, consented to the entry of the AWC and a fine and censure of $3.5 million. FINRA found that, in connection with several RMBS issued between January 2006 and October 2007 and underwritten by CGM, certain mortgage performance information posted to a website used for the offerings was inaccurate. In addition, FINRA found that certain of CGM’s supervisory and documentation practices with respect to pricing, independent price verification and margin calls were insufficient in 2007. The charges included failure to supervise, failure to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade, and books and records violations.

TERRA FIRMA LITIGATION

In December 2009, plaintiffs, general partners of two related private equity funds, filed a complaint in New York state court, subsequently removed to the Southern District of New York, against certain Citigroup affiliates. Plaintiffs allege that during the May 2007 auction of the music company EMI, Citigroup, as advisor to EMI and as a potential lender to plaintiffs’ acquisition vehicle Maltby, fraudulently or negligently orally misrepresented the intentions of another potential bidder regarding the auction. Plaintiffs alleged that, but for the oral misrepresentations, Maltby would not have acquired EMl for approximately £4.2 billion. Plaintiffs further alleged that, following the acquisition of EMI, certain Citigroup entities tortiously interfered with plaintiffs’ business relationship with EMI. Plaintiffs sought billions of dollars in damages. On September 15, 2010, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Citigroup’ s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent misrepresentation and tortious interference were dismissed. On October 18, 2010, a jury trial commenced on plaintiffs’ remaining claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. The court dismissed the fraudulent concealment claim before sending the case to the jury. On November 4, 2010, the jury returned a verdict on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim

in favor of Citigroup. Judgment dismissing the complaint was entered on December 9, 2010. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment as to the negligent misrepresentation claim, the fraudulent concealment claim and the fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

OTHER MATTERS

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. On March 18, 2011, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in an adversary proceeding captioned LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. In the complaint, which asserts claims under federal bankruptcy and state law, the Securities Investor Protection Act Trustee alleges that a $1 billion cash deposit that Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), the broker dealer subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”), placed with Citibank prior to the commencement of liquidation proceedings should be returned to the bankruptcy estate, that Citibank’s setoff against the $1 billion deposit to satisfy its claims against LBI should be set aside, and that approximately $342 million in additional deposits by LBI currently held by Citibank and its affiliates should be returned to the estate. Citigroup has moved to dismiss the adversary complaint.

On September 15, 2008, LBHI subsidiary Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration under English law. Since that time, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have held as custodians approximately $2 billion of proprietary assets and cash of LBIE. During the course of LBIE’s administration, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries asserted a contractual right to retain the proprietary assets and cash as security for amounts owed to Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries by LBIE and its affiliates (including LBHI and LBI), a right that the administrators for LBIE disputed. On June 28, 2011, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a settlement agreement with LBIE resolving the parties’ disputes with respect to LBIE’s proprietary assets and cash held by Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries as custodians. Under the terms of the settlement, Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries will return LBIE’s proprietary assets and cash and release all claims in respect of those assets and cash in exchange for releases, the payment of fees, and preservation of certain claims asserted by Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries in LBIE’s insolvency proceedings in the United Kingdom.

27001 Partnership, et al. v. BT Securities Corp., et al.: In December 2004, 46 individual purchasers of 10-1/2% Senior Subordinated Notes (the “Notes”) issued in 1995 in connection with the leveraged recapitalization of Bruno’s Inc. sued the underwriters of the Notes, including Salomon Brothers, Inc., together with Bruno’s auditors, in Alabama state court. Plaintiffs brought state law claims arising out of, among other things, alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the Prospectus issued in connection with the offering. The case was filed following the prior dismissal, after years of motion practice, of a lawsuit brought in April 2000 by the investment advisor to these 46 plaintiffs on behalf of its clients, which alleged identical claims against defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased $190 million of the Notes and seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. After the commencement of the case in 2004, the parties engaged in extensive procedural motion practice, which resulted in the dismissal of several defendants on October 14, 2005. On August 25, 2009, 27001 PARTNERSHIP

was consolidated with W.R. HUFF ASSET MANAGEMENT CO., LLC v. KOHLBERG KRAVIS ROBERTS & CO., L.P., also pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The circuit court further held that the parties in 27001 PARTNERSHIP are to provide certain discovery materials to the parties in W.R. HUFF ASSET MANAGEMENT, but that the two cases would be tried separately. On September 18, 2009, defendants Salomon Brothers, Inc. and Chemical Securities, Inc. moved for summary judgment. On September 18, 2009, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment. In January 2010, prior to trial, the Citigroup subsidiaries and affiliates (the “Citigroup Defendants”) entered into a settlement conditioned on court approval. On March 24, 2010, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Alabama state court entered an Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal and bar order, dismissing the Citigroup Defendants from the Bruno’s actions with prejudice.

W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P. In August 1999, W. R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC filed this lawsuit (the “KKR Case”) on behalf of its clients who purchased 101/2% Senior Subordinated Notes issued in 1995 in connection with the leveraged recapitalization of Bruno’s, Inc. The case was filed in Alabama state court against Robinson Humphrey Co. LLC, which served as financial advisor to Bruno’s in connection with the leveraged recapitalization (and which later became a fully owned subsidiary of Salomon Smith Barney) and others. The KKR Case arises out of the same transaction at issue in 27001 PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. v. BT SECURITIES CORP., ET AL. (the “BT Securities Case” described above). The allegations and potential exposure in the KKR Case and BT Securities Case are similar, with plaintiffs seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and pre-judgment interest in an amount they allege to be between approximately $250 million and $750 million. After years of motion practice over jurisdictional issues, on April 29, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order allowing Huff to amend its complaint to substitute the same 46 individual noteholders named as plaintiffs in the BT Securities Case as plaintiffs in the KKR Case, resulting in remand of the case to Alabama state court. Defendants’ motion to strike the Fourth Amended Complaint and plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the BT Securities and KKR Cases are pending. On August 6, 2009, the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama granted defendant Robinson Humphrey Co. LLC’s motion to strike the Fourth Amended Complaint on statute of limitations grounds, thereby dismissing Robinson Humphrey Co. LLC from the case. On August 25, 2009, the case was consolidated with 27001 PARTNERSHIP for discovery purposes but not for trial. In January 2010, prior to trial, the Citigroup defendants entered into a settlement conditioned on court approval.

Terra Securities ASA Konkursbo, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al. On August 10, 2009, Norwegian securities firm Terra Securities ASA Konkursbo and seven Norwegian municipalities filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, CGM and Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC. The complaint asserts, among other things, claims under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state law arising out of the municipalities’ investment in certain notes. Plaintiffs allege that, among other things, the municipalities invested in the notes after receiving purportedly false and materially misleading marketing materials that were allegedly prepared by defendants. On October 7, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Tribune Company Bankruptcy. Certain Citigroup entities have been named as defendants in adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 cases of Tribune Company (“Tribune”) pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints set forth allegations arising out of the approximately $11 billion leveraged buyout (“LBO”) of Tribune in 2007. With respect to Citigroup, the complaints allege claims relating to Citigroup’s role as lender and advisor to Tribune in connection with the LBO and seek to avoid, recover, subordinate or disallow payments on LBO debt, as well as approximately $57 million in lender and advisory fees received by Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries in connection with the LBO. The complaints also assert claims of aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Tribune management as well as professional malpractice. The complaints have been stayed by court order pending a confirmation hearing on competing plans of reorganization. If confirmed, the plan proposed by the Debtors and others, and supported by Citigroup, would settle all claims relating to Citigroup’s role as lender. On February 11, 2011, Tribune and its debtor subsidiaries announced that most classes of voting creditors overwhelmingly approved the Debtors’ plan. The confirmation hearing before the Bankruptcy Court commenced on March 8, 2011. The parties completed their evidentiary presentations on April 12, 2011. The Bankruptcy Court confirmation hearing concluded on June 27, 2011. On October 31, 2011, the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of both the competing plans. A third amended plan of reorganization was then proposed, and confirmation proceedings are expected to take place in 2012. Certain Citigroup entities have been named as defendants in two actions brought by creditors of Tribune alleging state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims relating to the Tribune LBO. These actions have been stayed pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization.

Asset Repurchase Matters. Beginning in March 2010, various regulators have made inquiries regarding the accounting treatment of certain repurchase transactions. Citigroup is cooperating fully with these inquiries.

Additionally, beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and other private civil suits were filed in various courts against banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates, including certain Citigroup subsidiaries. The actions, which assert various federal and state law claims relating to the setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation proceeding before Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York.

In the course of its business, CGM, as a major futures commission merchant and broker-dealer, is a party to various civil actions, claims and routine regulatory investigations and proceedings that the General Partner believes do not have a material effect on the business of CGM. GCM may establish reserves from time to time in connections with such actions. Additional lawsuits containing claims similar to those described above may be filed in the future.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors set forth under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, and under Part II, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in the Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.

The Partnership no longer offers Redeemable Units for sale.

The following chart sets forth the purchases of Redeemable Units by the Partnership.


Period	(a) Total Number of Units Purchased*		(b) Average Price Paid per Unit**		(c) Total Number of Units Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs		(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Units that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
April 1, 2012 — April 30, 2012		93.9558	$	1,610.59		N/A		N/A
May 1, 2012 — May 31, 2012		93.7189	$	1,676.31		N/A		N/A
June 1, 2012 — June 30, 2012		89.5278	$	1,586.72		N/A		N/A
		277.2025	$	1,625.10

Generally, limited partners are permitted to redeem their Redeemable Units as of the end of each month on three business days’ notice to the General Partner. Under certain circumstances, the General Partner can compel redemption although, to date, the General Partner has not exercised this right. Purchases of Redeemable Units by the Partnership reflected in the chart above were made in the ordinary course of the Partnership’s business in connection with effecting redemptions for limited partners.

**	Redemptions of Redeemable Units are effected as of the last day of each month at the net asset value per Redeemable Unit as of that day.

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities — None

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures — None

Item 5. Other Information — None

Item 6. Exhibits



3.1		Limited Partnership Agreement (filed as Exhibit 3.1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on February 9, 1994 and incorporated herein by reference).

3.2	(a)	Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York on October 13, 1993 (filed as Exhibit 3.2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on February 9, 1994 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated October 1, 1999 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(b) to the Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(c)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated May 21, 2003 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(c) to the Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(d)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated September 21, 2005 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(d) to the Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(e)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated September 19, 2008 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(e) to the Form 10-Q filed on November 16, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(f)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated September 28, 2009 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(f) to the Form 8-K/A filed on April 14, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(g)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated April 12, 2010 (filed as Exhibit 3.2(g) to the Form 8-K/A filed on April 14, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(h)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated July 2, 2010 (filed as exhibit 3.1 to the Form 8-K filed on July 2, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(i)	Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership as filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated September 2, 2011 (filed as exhibit 3.1 to the Form 8-K filed on September 9, 2011 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.1		Customer Agreement between the Partnership and Smith Barney Shearson Inc. (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on February 9, 1994 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.2		Escrow Instructions relating to escrow of subscription funds (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed on February 9, 1994 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.3	(a)	Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and Willowbridge (filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-K filed on March 29, 2000 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Letter extending Management Agreement with Willowbridge from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.3(b) to the Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference).



10.4	(a)	Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and Winton (filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-K filed on March 27, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Letter extending Management Agreement with Winton from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.4(b) to the Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.5	(a)	Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and Graham (filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-K filed on March 27, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Letter extending Management Agreement with Graham from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.5(b) to the Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.6	(a)	Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and Eckhardt (filed as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2008 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Letter extending Management Agreement with Eckhardt from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.6(b) to the Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.7	(a)	Management Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner and SandRidge (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Form 8-K filed on June 2, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

	(b)	Letter extending Management Agreement with SandRidge from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 (filed as Exhibit 10.7(b) to the Form 10-K filed on March 30, 2012 and incorporated herein by reference).

10.8		Joinder Agreement among the Partnership, the General Partner, CGM and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (filed as Exhibit 10 to the Form 10-Q filed on August 14, 2009 and incorporated herein by reference).

31.1		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification (Certification of President and Director). (filed herein)

31.2		Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer). (filed herein)

32.1		Section 1350 Certification (Certification of President and Director). (filed herein)

32.2		Section 1350 Certification (Certification of Chief Financial Officer). (filed herein)

101.INS		XBRL Instance Document.

101.SCH		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.

101.CAL		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.

101.LAB		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.

1010.PRE		XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements 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.

DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P.


By:		Ceres Managed Futures LLC
		(General Partner)


By:		/s/ Walter Davis
		Walter Davis
		President and Director

Date: August 14, 2012


By:		/s/ Damian George
		Damian George
		Chief Financial Officer
		(Principal Accounting Officer)

Date: August 14, 2012

DIVERSIFIED MULTI-ADVISOR FUTURES FUND L.P. 10-Q