Please thoroughly read this article and briefly answer the question.

ASIC Casts Conict of Interest Net Wider Source: The Australian, April 3, 2006 THE Australian Securities and Investments Commission's enforcement arm sued Citigroup at the end of last week, alleging insider trading and breaches of conflict-of-interest rules coming from the investment bank's role of advising transport giant Toll Holdings in its 55.5 billion bid for stevedoring company Patrick Corporation. At the same time, ASIC's compliance department has launched a probe focused on personnel and procedures, rather than alleged or possible breaches. In the case of Citigroup, its procedures have come under question. Citigroup allegedly breached conflict-of interest rules when it bought 1 million shares in Patrick on the Friday before Toll launched its bid for Patrick last August. Citigroup bought the Patrick shares for its own book when they were trading at under $5 and helped push the price higher on a frantic day of trading. At the same time, Citigroup's client, Toll, was preparing to launch its bid the following Monday. ASIC's conflict-of-interest rules, introduced in January last year, focus on a slightly different area conflicts that can arise between analysts and investment bankers. During the technology boom, a number of analysts from Wall Street firms, including Citigroup's Jack Grubman, spruiked stocks while also lobbying for investment banking deals. In 2003 most of the big Wall Street firms signed up to a settlement, which imposed stringent rules for managing conflicts between analysts and investment bankers. ASIC applied similar rules last year. The potential for conflicts of interest between analysts and investment bankers also arose in Citigroup's Toll role. Citigroup's top-ranked analyst, .Iason Smith, was brought over the 'Chinese Wall,' which is designed to separate banking groups, and told about the upcoming Toll bid. He ceased providing research on Patrick, but in a sign of how difficult such issues can be, that move had the effect of increasing bid speculation. On August 18 last year, Patrick downgraded its earnings because of its majority holding in the troubled airline Virgin Blue. When Mr Smith failed to publish a report the next day, his research was missed and that added to the speculation Citigroup was involved in a bid. That was the Friday before the bid, when Citigroup was buying frantically. Mr Smith also found himself at the centre of conflict questions later on in the bid when he was to host a trip to New Zealand fortransport investors to see Toll NZ, an 84 per cent-owned subsidiary of Toll Holdings. Many of the investors travelling to see Toll NZ would also be Patrick shareholders and Toll's chief financial officer was also to make the trip. Patrick's pugnacious chief executive, Chris Corrigan, got wind of the trip and kicked up a stink. In the end Mr Smith did not host the trip. Question: This case goes to the core of CFA Standard VI: Conicts of Interest. Does Citigroup satisfy the CFA standard in this case? Carefully explain the various issues