Litigation
Contingencies
As of December 31, 2013, the Firm and its subsidiaries are defendants or putative defendants in numerous legal proceedings, including private, civil litigations and regulatory/government investigations. The litigations range from individual actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially millions of class members. Investigations involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. These legal proceedings are at varying stages of adjudication, arbitration or investigation, and involve each of the Firm’s lines of business and geographies and a wide variety of claims (including common law tort and contract claims and statutory antitrust, securities and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel legal theories.
The Firm believes the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its legal proceedings is from $0 to approximately $5.0 billion at December 31, 2013. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm is involved, taking into account the Firm’s best estimate of such losses for those cases for which such estimate can be made. For certain cases, the Firm does not believe that an estimate can currently be made. The Firm’s estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many are currently in preliminary stages), the existence in many such proceedings of multiple defendants (including the Firm) whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings (including issues regarding class certification and the scope of many of the claims) and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary.
Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings.
Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Matter. In September 2013, an action brought by Bank of America and Banc of America Securities LLC (together “BofA”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc. (“BSAM”) relating to alleged losses resulting from the failure of the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. was dismissed after the court granted BSAM’s motion for summary judgment. BofA has determined not to appeal the dismissal.
CIO Investigations and Litigation. The Firm is responding to a consolidated shareholder purported class action, a consolidated purported class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and shareholder derivative actions that have been filed in New York state court and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as well as shareholder demands and government investigations, relating to losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). The Firm continues to cooperate with ongoing government investigations, including by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the State of Massachusetts. The purported class actions and shareholder derivative actions are in early stages with defendants’ motions to dismiss pending.
Credit Default Swaps Investigations and Litigation. In July 2013, the European Commission (the “EC”) filed a Statement of Objections against the Firm (including various subsidiaries) and other industry members in connection with its ongoing investigation into the credit default swaps (“CDS”) marketplace. The EC asserts that between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment banks acted collectively through the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) and Markit Group Limited (“Markit”) to foreclose exchanges from the potential market for exchange-traded credit derivatives by instructing Markit and ISDA to license their respective data and index benchmarks only for over-the-counter (“OTC”) trading and not for exchange trading, allegedly to protect the investment banks’ revenues from the OTC market. The Firm submitted a response to the Statement of Objections in January 2014. The U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) also has an ongoing investigation into the CDS marketplace, which was initiated in July 2009.
Separately, the Firm is a defendant in nine purported class actions (all consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York) filed on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS and asserting federal antitrust law claims. Each of the complaints refers to the ongoing investigations by the EC and DOJ into the CDS market, and alleges that the defendant investment banks and dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new entrants into the CDS market, in order to artificially inflate the defendants’ OTC revenues.
Foreign Exchange Investigations and Litigation. The Firm has received information requests, document production notices and related inquiries from various U.S. and non-U.S. government authorities regarding the Firm’s foreign exchange trading business. These investigations are in the early stages and the Firm is cooperating with the relevant authorities.
Since November 2013, a number of class actions have been filed in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York against a number of foreign exchange dealers, including the Firm, for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters service.
Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints relating to interchange in several federal courts. The complaints alleged that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. All cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.
The parties have entered into an agreement to settle those cases, for a cash payment of $6.05 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which the Firm’s share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for modifications to each credit card network’s rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. The rule modifications became effective in January 2013. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants have filed notices of appeal. Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks.
Investment Management Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending cases that allege that investment portfolios managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management (“JPMIM”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs Assured Guaranty (U.K.) and Ambac Assurance UK Limited claim that JPMIM is liable for losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. Discovery is proceeding.
Italian Proceedings.
City of Milan. In January 2009, the City of Milan, Italy (the “City”) issued civil proceedings against (among others) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities plc in the District Court of Milan alleging a breach of advisory obligations in connection with a bond issue by the City in June 2005 and an associated swap transaction. The Firm has entered into a settlement agreement with the City to resolve the City’s civil proceedings.
Four current and former JPMorgan Chase employees and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as well as other individuals and three other banks) were directed by a criminal judge to participate in a trial that started in May 2010. As it relates to JPMorgan Chase individuals, two were acquitted and two were found guilty of aggravated fraud with sanctions of prison sentences, fines and a ban from dealing with Italian public bodies for one year. JPMorgan Chase (along with other banks involved) was found liable for breaches of Italian administrative law, fined €1 million and ordered to forfeit the profit from the transaction (for JPMorgan Chase, totaling €24.7 million). JPMorgan Chase and the individuals are appealing the verdict, and none of the sanctions will take effect until all appeal avenues have been exhausted. The first appeal hearing took place in January 2014.
Parmalat. In 2003, following the bankruptcy of the Parmalat group of companies (“Parmalat”), criminal prosecutors in Italy investigated the activities of Parmalat, its directors and the financial institutions that had dealings with them following the collapse of the company. In March 2012, the criminal prosecutor served a notice indicating an intention to pursue criminal proceedings against four former employees of the Firm (but not against the Firm) on charges of conspiracy to cause Parmalat’s insolvency by underwriting bonds and continuing derivatives trading when Parmalat’s balance sheet was false. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for February 2014, at which the judge will determine whether to recommend that the matter go to a full trial.
In addition, the administrator of Parmalat commenced five civil actions against JPMorgan Chase entities including: two claw-back actions; a claim relating to bonds issued by Parmalat in which it is alleged that JPMorgan Chase kept Parmalat “artificially” afloat and delayed the declaration of insolvency; and similar allegations in two claims relating to derivatives transactions.
Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. In May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) filed a complaint (and later an amended complaint) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and seeks, among other relief, to recover $8.6 billion in collateral that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also seeks unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s bankruptcy. The Court dismissed the counts of the amended complaint that sought to void the allegedly constructively fraudulent and preferential transfers made to the Firm during the months of August and September 2008.
The Firm has also filed counterclaims against LBHI alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large clearing advances to Lehman against inappropriate collateral, which left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims (the “Clearing Claims”) against the estate of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. LBHI and the Committee have filed an objection to the claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to the Clearing Claims, principally on the grounds that the Firm had not conducted the sale of the securities collateral held for such claims in a commercially reasonable manner. The Clearing Claims, together with approximately $3 billion of other claims of the Firm against Lehman entities, have been paid in full, subject to the outcome of the objections filed by LBHI and the Committee. Discovery is ongoing.
LBHI and several of its subsidiaries that had been Chapter 11 debtors have filed a separate complaint and objection to derivatives claims asserted by the Firm alleging that the amount of the derivatives claims had been overstated and challenging certain set-offs taken by JPMorgan Chase entities to recover on the claims. The Firm responded to this separate complaint and objection in February 2013. Discovery is ongoing.
LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies and entities, including the DOJ, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and various state attorneys general, as well as the European Commission, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”), Canadian Competition Bureau, Swiss Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and banking associations around the world relating primarily to the process by which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association (“BBA”) in connection with the setting of the BBA’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for various currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by which information on rates is submitted to the European Banking Federation (“EBF”) in connection with the setting of the EBF’s Euro Interbank Offered Rates (“EURIBOR”) and to the Japanese Bankers’ Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered Rates (“TIBOR”) as well as to other processes for the setting of other reference rates in various parts of the world during similar time periods. The Firm is cooperating with these inquiries. In December 2013, JPMorgan Chase reached a settlement with the European Commission regarding its Japanese Yen LIBOR investigation and agreed to pay a fine of €79.9 million. Investigations by the European Commission with regard to other reference rates remain open. In January 2014, the Canadian Competition Bureau announced that it has discontinued its investigation related to Yen LIBOR.
In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in various United States District Courts in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, or Euroyen TIBOR and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages.
The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related purported class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the claims, including dismissal with prejudice of the antitrust claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. In September 2013, certain plaintiffs filed amended complaints and others sought leave to amend their complaints to add additional allegations. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaints and have opposed the requests to amend. Those motions remain pending.
The Firm has also been named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options contracts. The action alleges manipulation of Yen LIBOR. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
The Firm has also been named as a nominal defendant in a derivative action in the Supreme Court of New York in the County of New York against certain current and former members of the Firm’s board of directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm’s purported role in manipulating LIBOR. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
Madoff Litigation and Investigations. In January 2014, certain of the Firm’s bank subsidiaries entered into settlements with various governmental agencies in resolution of investigations relating to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”). The Firm and certain of its subsidiaries also entered into settlements with several private parties in resolution of civil litigation relating to BLMIS.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “DPA”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (the “U.S. Attorney”) in which it agreed to forfeit $1.7 billion to the United States as a non-tax-deductible payment. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. also consented, subject to the terms and conditions of the DPA, to the filing by the U.S. Attorney of an Information charging the bank with failure to maintain an adequate anti-money laundering program, and a failure to file a suspicious activity report in the United States in October 2008 with respect to BLMIS, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Pursuant to the DPA, the U.S. Attorney will defer any prosecution of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for a two-year period and will dismiss the Information with prejudice at the end of that time if the bank is in compliance with its obligations under the DPA. The DPA has been approved by the court.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A. and Chase Bank USA, N.A., have also consented to the assessment of a $350 million Civil Money Penalty by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) in connection with various Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering deficiencies, including in relation to the BLMIS fraud. In addition, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has agreed to the assessment of a $461 million Civil Money Penalty by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) for failure to detect and adequately report suspicious transactions relating to BLMIS. The FinCEN penalty, but not the OCC penalty, has been deemed satisfied by the forfeiture payment to the U.S. Attorney.
Additionally, the Firm and certain subsidiaries, including JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., have agreed to enter into settlements with the court-appointed trustee for BLMIS (the “Trustee”) and with plaintiffs representing a class of former BLMIS customers who lost all or a portion of their principal investments with BLMIS. As part of these settlements, the Firm and the bank have agreed to pay the Trustee a total of $325 million. Separately, the Firm and the bank have agreed to pay the class action plaintiffs $218 million, as well as attorneys’ fees, in exchange for a release of all damages claims relating to BLMIS. The settlements with the Trustee and the class action plaintiffs are subject to court approval. BLMIS customers who did not suffer losses on their principal investments are not eligible to participate in the class action settlement, and certain customers in that category have stated that they intend to pursue claims against the Firm.
Also, various subsidiaries of the Firm, including J.P. Morgan Securities plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, “Fairfield”), so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions seek to recover payments made by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155 million. Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action against J.P. Morgan Securities plc without prejudice to re-filing. The other actions remain outstanding.
In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed. In September 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The plaintiffs have petitioned the entire Court for a rehearing of the appeal and the Court has deferred decision pending a ruling by the United States Supreme Court on a potentially related issue.
The Firm is a defendant in five other Madoff-related investor actions pending in New York state court. The allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims against the Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The Firm has moved to dismiss these actions.
Additionally, a shareholder derivative action has been filed in New York state court against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging breach of fiduciary duty for failure to maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions.
MF Global. The Firm has responded to inquiries from the CFTC relating to the Firm’s banking and other business relationships with MF Global, including as a depository for MF Global’s customer segregated accounts.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several defendants in a number of purported class actions filed by purchasers of MF Global’s publicly traded securities asserting violations of federal securities laws and alleging that the offering documents contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding MF Global. The actions have been consolidated before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Discovery is ongoing.
Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Related Regulatory Investigations. JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (together, “JPMC”), Bear Stearns and affiliates (together, “Bear Stearns”) and Washington Mutual affiliates (together, “Washington Mutual”) have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in offerings of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). These cases include purported class action suits on behalf of MBS purchasers, actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings. Following the settlements referred to under “Repurchase Litigation” and “Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation” below, there are currently pending and tolled investor and monoline insurer claims involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately $74 billion, of which $67 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $7 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter. The Firm and certain of its current and former officers and Board members have also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts should be repurchased.
Issuer Litigation – Class Actions. The Firm is a defendant in three purported class actions brought against JPMC and Bear Stearns as MBS issuers (and, in some cases, also as underwriters of their own MBS offerings) in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. The Firm has reached an agreement in principle to settle one of these purported class actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Motions to dismiss have largely been denied in the remaining two cases pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which are in various stages of litigation.
Issuer Litigation – Individual Purchaser Actions. In addition to class actions, the Firm is defending individual actions brought against JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as MBS issuers (and, in some cases, also as underwriters of their own MBS offerings). These actions are pending in federal and state courts across the United States and are in various stages of litigation.
Monoline Insurer Litigation. The Firm is defending five pending actions relating to monoline insurers’ guarantees of principal and interest on certain classes of 14 different Bear Stearns MBS offerings. These actions are pending in federal and state courts in New York and are in various stages of litigation.
Underwriter Actions. In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other issuers’ MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers. However, those indemnity rights may prove effectively unenforceable in various situations, such as where the issuers are now defunct. There are currently such actions pending against the Firm in federal and state courts in various stages of litigation.
Repurchase Litigation. The Firm is defending a number of actions brought by trustees or master servicers of various MBS trusts and others on behalf of purchasers of securities issued by those trusts. These cases generally allege breaches of various representations and warranties regarding securitized loans and seek repurchase of those loans or equivalent monetary relief, as well as indemnification of attorneys’ fees and costs and other remedies. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for various MBS trusts, has filed such a suit against JPMC, Washington Mutual and the FDIC in connection with a significant number of MBS issued by Washington Mutual; that case is described in the Washington Mutual Litigations section below. Other repurchase actions, each specific to one or more MBS transactions issued by JPMC and/or Bear Stearns, are in various stages of litigation.
In addition, the Firm received demands by securitization trustees that threaten litigation, as well as demands by investors directing or threatening to direct trustees to investigate claims or bring litigation, based on purported obligations to repurchase loans out of securitization trusts and alleged servicing deficiencies. These include but are not limited to a demand from a law firm, as counsel to a group of 21 institutional MBS investors, to various trustees to investigate potential repurchase and servicing claims. These investors purported to have 25% or more of the voting rights in as many as 191 different trusts sponsored by the Firm or its affiliates with an original principal balance of more than $174 billion (excluding 52 trusts sponsored by Washington Mutual, with an original principal balance of more than $58 billion). Pursuant to a settlement agreement with the group of institutional investors, JPMC and the investor group have made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by JPMC and Bear Stearns that provides for the payment of $4.5 billion and the implementation of certain servicing changes to mortgage loans serviced by JPMC, to resolve all repurchase and servicing claims that have been asserted or could have been asserted with respect to the 330 MBS trusts. The offer, which is subject to acceptance by the trustees, and potentially a judicial approval process, does not resolve claims relating to WaMu MBS. JPMC and the trustees have agreed to toll and forbear from asserting repurchase and servicing claims with respect to most of the JPMC and Bear Stearns trusts subject to the settlement during the pendency of the settlement approval process.
There are additional repurchase and servicing claims made against trustees not affiliated with the Firm, but involving trusts that the Firm sponsored, which have been tolled.
Derivative Actions. Seven shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities have been filed to date against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors, in New York state court and California federal court. In one of the actions, the Firm’s motion to dismiss was granted and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. Defendants have filed, or intend to file, motions to dismiss the remaining actions.
Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation. The Firm resolved actual and potential civil claims by the DOJ and several State Attorneys General relating to residential mortgage-backed securities activities by JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, in addition to resolving litigation by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration. The Firm paid a total of $9.0 billion, which is comprised of a $2.0 billion civil monetary penalty and $7.0 billion in compensatory payments (including $4.0 billion to resolve the Federal Housing Finance Agency litigation) and made a commitment to provide $4.0 billion in borrower relief before the end of 2017. In connection with this settlement, including the resolution of litigation by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union Administration, the Firm agreed to waive its right to seek indemnification from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank and in its corporate capacity, with respect to any portion of this settlement relating to residential mortgage-backed securities activities of Washington Mutual Bank. The Firm retained its rights to seek indemnification from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for all other liabilities relating to the residential mortgage-backed securities activities of Washington Mutual Bank.
Simultaneously with the resolution of litigation by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Firm also agreed to resolve Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s repurchase claims associated with whole loan purchases from 2000 to 2008, for $1.1 billion.
The Firm is responding to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California relating to MBS offerings securitized and sold by the Firm and its subsidiaries. The Firm has also received other subpoenas and informal requests for information from federal and state authorities concerning the issuance and underwriting of MBS-related matters. The Firm continues to respond to these MBS-related regulatory inquiries.
In addition, the Firm is responding to and cooperating with requests for information from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, subpoenas and requests from the SEC Division of Enforcement, and a request from the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program to conduct a review of certain activities, all of which relate to, among other matters, communications with counterparties in connection with certain secondary market trading in MBS.
The Firm has entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased MBS that toll applicable limitations periods with respect to their claims, and has settled, and in the future may settle, tolled claims. There is no assurance that the Firm will not be named as a defendant in additional MBS-related litigation.
Mortgage-Related Investigations and Litigation. The Attorney General of Massachusetts filed an action against the Firm, other servicers and a mortgage recording company, asserting claims for various alleged wrongdoings relating to mortgage assignments and use of the industry’s electronic mortgage registry. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action, which remains pending.
The Firm is named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. The plaintiffs have moved for class certification.
Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York Supreme Court against the Firm’s Board of Directors alleging that the Board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing. These actions seek declaratory relief and damages. In October 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and stayed all proceedings pending the plaintiffs’ decision whether to file a consolidated complaint after the Firm completes its response to a demand submitted by one of the plaintiffs under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.
In February 2014, the Firm entered into a settlement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) resolving claims relating to the Firm’s participation in federal mortgage insurance programs overseen by FHA, HUD and VA. Under the settlement, JPMorgan Chase will pay $614 million and agree to enhance its quality control program for loans that are submitted in the future to FHA’s Direct Endorsement Lender program. This settlement releases the Firm from False Claims Act, FIRREA and other civil and administrative liability for FHA and VA insurance claims that have been paid to JPMorgan Chase since 2002 through the date of the settlement.
The Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation concerning the Firm’s compliance with the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) in connection with its mortgage lending practices. In addition, two municipalities are pursuing investigations into the impact, if any, of alleged violations of the FHA and ECOA on their respective communities. The Firm is cooperating in these investigations.
Municipal Derivatives Litigation. Several civil actions were commenced in New York and Alabama courts against the Firm relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions. The claims in the civil actions generally alleged that the Firm made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the County. The County filed for bankruptcy in November 2011. In June 2013, the County filed a Chapter 9 Plan of Adjustment, as amended (the “Plan of Adjustment”), which provided that all the above-described actions against the Firm would be released and dismissed with prejudice. In November 2013, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan of Adjustment, and in December 2013, certain sewer rate payers filed an appeal challenging the confirmation of the Plan of Adjustment. All conditions to the Plan of Adjustment’s effectiveness, including the dismissal of the actions against the Firm, were satisfied or waived and the transactions contemplated by the Plan of Adjustment occurred in December 2013. Accordingly, all the above-described actions against the Firm have been dismissed pursuant to the terms of the Plan of Adjustment. The appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Plan of Adjustment remains pending.
Petters Bankruptcy and Related Matters. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its affiliates, including One Equity Partners (“OEP”), have been named as defendants in several actions filed in connection with the receivership and bankruptcy proceedings pertaining to Thomas J. Petters and certain affiliated entities (collectively, “Petters”) and the Polaroid Corporation. The principal actions against JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates have been brought by a court-appointed receiver for Petters and the trustees in bankruptcy proceedings for three Petters entities. These actions generally seek to avoid certain purported transfers in connection with (i) the 2005 acquisition by Petters of Polaroid, which at the time was majority-owned by OEP; (ii) two credit facilities that JPMorgan Chase and other financial institutions entered into with Polaroid; and (iii) a credit line and investment accounts held by Petters. The actions collectively seek recovery of approximately $450 million. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions filed by the Petters bankruptcy trustees.
Power Matters. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is investigating matters relating to the bidding activities that were the subject of the July 2013 settlement between J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corp. and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Firm is cooperating with the investigation.
Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. The SEC and DOJ are investigating, among other things, the Firm’s compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the Firm’s hiring practices related to candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials, and its engagement of consultants in the Asia Pacific region. The Firm is cooperating with these investigations. Separate inquiries on these or similar topics have been made by other authorities, including authorities in other jurisdictions, and the Firm is responding to those inquiries.
Sworn Documents, Debt Sales and Collection Litigation Practices. The Firm has been responding to formal and informal inquiries from various state and federal regulators regarding practices involving credit card collections litigation (including with respect to sworn documents), the sale of consumer credit card debt and securities backed by credit card receivables. In September 2013, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A. and JPMorgan Bank and Trust Company, N.A. (collectively, the “Banks”) entered into a consent order with the OCC regarding collections litigation processes pursuant to which the Banks agreed to take certain corrective actions in connection with certain of JPMorgan Chase’s credit card, student loan, auto loan, business banking and commercial banking customers who defaulted on their loan or contract.
Separately, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and multiple state Attorneys General are conducting investigations into the Firm’s collection and sale of consumer credit card debt. The California and Mississippi Attorneys General have filed separate civil actions against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase BankCard Services, Inc. alleging violations of law relating to debt collection practices.
Washington Mutual Litigations. Proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure are pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and include a lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, initially against the FDIC, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breach of various mortgage securitization agreements and alleged violation of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) subsidiaries in connection with those securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase may have assumed liabilities for the alleged breaches of representations and warranties in the mortgage securitization agreements. The District Court denied as premature motions by the Firm and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims. Discovery is underway.
An action filed by certain holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt against JPMorgan Chase, which alleged that JPMorgan Chase acquired substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC at a price that was allegedly too low, remains pending. JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC moved to dismiss this action and the District Court dismissed the case except as to the plaintiffs’ claim that the Firm tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs’ bond contracts with Washington Mutual Bank prior to its closure. Discovery is ongoing.
JPMorgan Chase has also filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank and in its corporate capacity asserting multiple claims for indemnification under the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC relating to JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of most of the assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank.
* * *
In addition to the various legal proceedings discussed above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or are otherwise involved in a substantial number of other legal proceedings. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future.
The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. The Firm accrues for potential liability arising from such proceedings when it is probable that such liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Firm evaluates its outstanding legal proceedings each quarter to assess its litigation reserves, and makes adjustments in such reserves, upwards or downwards, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, the Firm incurred $11.1 billion, $5.0 billion and $4.9 billion, respectively, of legal expense. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future.
In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what will be the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters, the timing of their ultimate resolution or the eventual losses, fines, penalties or impact related to those matters. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the legal proceedings currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s consolidated financial condition. The Firm notes, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, there is no assurance the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.
