Citi doesn't sound like the bad guy in this case.. BT borrowed from Citi for the buildout. Citi was told 40% of payments to BT were not from tax receipts, and were available to service the loan. Then when it became clear the buildout wasn't going well, the mayor decided to allocate $0 in the city budget to service the loan, and declared that all payments, no matter the source, were tax receipts(ie: payments from BTs customers were tax receipts now).. and therefore Citi would receive nothing because in their interpretation of the loan agreement, only non-tax revenues would be available for loan payments.
Where in that is Citibank doing the wrong thing? Is Citibank wrong because they wanted to receive more than $0 from BT?
And casting this as Citibank's fault directly conflicts with the fraud investigation, illegal borrowing from city bank accounts, etc. There was clear mismanagement by BT, bad forecasts for subscriber numbers, and no more funds available because this occurred during the financial crisis in 2008 (prompting the illegal borrowing from the city).