Litigation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Contingencies As of June 30, 2014, 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 $4.6 billion at June 30, 2014. 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. CIO Investigations and Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder purported class action, a consolidated purported class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and shareholder derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state court relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). Plaintiffs in two of the shareholder derivative actions and the ERISA action have appealed the dismissal of their claims. The Firm also continues to cooperate with ongoing government investigations. 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. The Firm submitted a response to the Statement of Objections in January 2014, and the EC held a hearing in May 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 and other industry members are defendants 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. Defendants moved to dismiss in May 2014. 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. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate with the relevant authorities. Since November 2013, a number of class actions have been filed in the United States 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. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss in May 2014. Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging 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. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle the cases, for a cash payment of $6.1 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. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants have appealed. 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, which are subject to pending motions to dismiss. 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. JPMorgan Chase and the individuals appealed, and the Court fully acquitted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its employees, stating that there was no case to answer. The deadline to file an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court has passed without an appeal being filed. 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, in which the judge will determine whether to recommend that the matter go to a full trial, is ongoing. 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 $7.9 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 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., LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. Discovery is ongoing. 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. LBHI and several of its subsidiaries that had been Chapter 11 debtors have also 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. The Clearing Claims and the derivatives claims, together with 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 in both cases 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 EC, 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 responding to and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries. In December 2013, JPMorgan Chase reached a settlement with the EC regarding its Japanese Yen LIBOR investigation and agreed to pay a fine of €80 million. Investigations by the EC with regard to other reference rates remain open. In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR. The Firm will file a response. 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, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR 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, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR 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 in three lead class actions, 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, class plaintiffs in two of the three lead class actions filed amended complaints and others sought leave to amend their complaints to add additional allegations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed the requests to amend. In June 2014, the Court issued a further order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining claims. In relation to the Firm, the Court has permitted certain claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims to proceed. With respect to the third lead class action, which the Court dismissed in its entirety, after plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed by the Second Circuit, plaintiff sought and obtained leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether its appeal could proceed before final resolution of the other consolidated class actions. To date, the other U.S. dollar LIBOR cases have been stayed. The purported class action alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR was 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. In March 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss including dismissal of plaintiff’s antitrust and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants have filed motions to reconsider, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint to add additional parties and claims. In March 2014, the Firm was added as a defendant in a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the interest rate benchmark EURIBOR. The Firm was also 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. In March 2014, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff did not appeal this decision. Madoff Litigation and Investigations. Settlements with the court-appointed trustee (the “Trustee”) for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) and with plaintiffs representing a class of former BLMIS customers who lost all or a portion of their principal investments with BLMIS have now been approved. Certain customers have opted out of the class action settlement. 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. All but two of these actions have been dismissed. 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 then petitioned the entire Court for a rehearing of the appeal, and in May 2014 the Court denied the petition. 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. In May 2014, the parties submitted briefs on the res judicata effect of the class action settlement and a decision is pending. A purported class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and were not included in the class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the last statement balance for each plaintiff and punitive damages. A similar action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Florida Action”), although it is not styled as a class action, and the plaintiffs, in addition to net winners, include a small number of net loser opt-outs. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Florida Action which includes only net winners, includes a claim pursuant to a Florida statute and dismisses three common law claims that were included in the earlier complaint. Three shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in New York federal and state court against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm’s relationship with Bernard Madoff and the alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions. The actions seek declaratory relief and damages. In July 2014, the federal court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss two of the actions and defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the remaining state court action. MF Global. 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 Firm also 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. Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Related Regulatory Investigations. JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (together, “JPMC”), Bear Stearns and affiliates (together, “Bear Stearns”) and certain 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 $48 billion, of which $42 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $6 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. Three purported class actions were 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 to settle one of these purported class actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That settlement has received final court approval. 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 two pending actions relating to a monoline insurer’s guarantees of principal and interest on certain classes of 11 different Bear Stearns MBS offerings. These actions are pending in state court 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 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Washington Mutual and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (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 threatened litigation demands by securitization trustees, as well as demands by investors directing trustees to investigate claims or bring litigation, which allege obligations to repurchase loans and to address 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 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, JPMC and this investor group have made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by JPMC and Bear Stearns providing for the payment of $4.5 billion and the implementation of certain servicing changes 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 Washington Mutual MBS. On August 1, 2014, the trustees announced their determination to accept the offer in whole or in part for 310 of the 330 MBS trusts and to proceed with seeking judicial approval of such acceptance. The trustees rejected the settlement offer in whole or in part for six trusts that are subject to pending monoline insurer or repurchase litigation, and received a 60-day extension to solicit investor direction on whether the offer should be accepted for an additional 14 trusts and for certain loan groups in 13 trusts for which the offer was accepted in part on August 1, 2014. There are additional repurchase and servicing claims made against trustees not affiliated with the Firm but involving trusts that the Firm sponsored. Derivative Actions. Shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities have been filed 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. Two of the New York actions have been dismissed and defendants have filed, or intend to file, motions to dismiss the remaining actions. Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation. 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 continuing to cooperate 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 residential and commercial 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. One shareholder derivative action has 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. In June 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending. 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, three municipalities have commenced litigation against the Firm alleging violations of the FHA and ECOA and seeking damages in the form of lost tax revenue and increased municipal costs associated with foreclosed properties. A motion to dismiss has been filed in one of the actions. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is responding to inquiries by the Executive Office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee and various regional U.S. Bankruptcy Trustees relating to mortgage payment change notices and escrow statements in bankruptcy proceedings. 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 responding to and cooperating with the investigation. Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. Various regulators 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 responding to and continuing to cooperate with these investigations. 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. 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 and amended to include JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a defendant, 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 affiliates 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 JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims. The defendants have filed additional motions as to that issue. An action filed by certain holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt against JPMorgan Chase, which alleges 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 JPMorgan Chase 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. In accordance with the provisions of U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Firm accrues for a litigation-related liability when it is probable that such a 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 downward, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. The Firm incurred legal expense of $669 million and $678 million during the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and $707 million and $1.0 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 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.

Litigation

Contingencies

As of June 30, 2014, 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 $4.6 billion at June 30, 2014. 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.

CIO Investigations and Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder purported class action, a consolidated purported class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and shareholder derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state court relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). Plaintiffs in two of the shareholder derivative actions and the ERISA action have appealed the dismissal of their claims. The Firm also continues to cooperate with ongoing government investigations.

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. The Firm submitted a response to the Statement of Objections in January 2014, and the EC held a hearing in May 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 and other industry members are defendants 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. Defendants moved to dismiss in May 2014.

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. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate with the relevant authorities.

Since November 2013, a number of class actions have been filed in the United States 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. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss in May 2014.

Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging 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. The parties have entered into an agreement to settle the cases, for a cash payment of $6.1 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. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants have appealed. 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, which are subject to pending motions to dismiss.

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. JPMorgan Chase and the individuals appealed, and the Court fully acquitted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its employees, stating that there was no case to answer. The deadline to file an appeal to the Italian Supreme Court has passed without an appeal being filed.

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, in which the judge will determine whether to recommend that the matter go to a full trial, is ongoing.

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 $7.9 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 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., LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. Discovery is ongoing.

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.

LBHI and several of its subsidiaries that had been Chapter 11 debtors have also 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. The Clearing Claims and the derivatives claims, together with 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 in both cases 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 EC, 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 responding to and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries. In December 2013, JPMorgan Chase reached a settlement with the EC regarding its Japanese Yen LIBOR investigation and agreed to pay a fine of €80 million. Investigations by the EC with regard to other reference rates remain open. In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR. The Firm will file a response. 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, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR 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, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR 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 in three lead class actions, 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, class plaintiffs in two of the three lead class actions filed amended complaints and others sought leave to amend their complaints to add additional allegations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed the requests to amend. In June 2014, the Court issued a further order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the remaining claims. In relation to the Firm, the Court has permitted certain claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims to proceed. With respect to the third lead class action, which the Court dismissed in its entirety, after plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed by the Second Circuit, plaintiff sought and obtained leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether its appeal could proceed before final resolution of the other consolidated class actions. To date, the other U.S. dollar LIBOR cases have been stayed.

The purported class action alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR was 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. In March 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss including dismissal of plaintiff’s antitrust and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants have filed motions to reconsider, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims. Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint to add additional parties and claims.

In March 2014, the Firm was added as a defendant in a putative class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the interest rate benchmark EURIBOR.

The Firm was also 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. In March 2014, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff did not appeal this decision.

Madoff Litigation and Investigations. Settlements with the court-appointed trustee (the “Trustee”) for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”) and with plaintiffs representing a class of former BLMIS customers who lost all or a portion of their principal investments with BLMIS have now been approved. Certain customers have opted out of the class action settlement.

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. All but two of these actions have been dismissed.

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 then petitioned the entire Court for a rehearing of the appeal, and in May 2014 the Court denied the petition.

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. In May 2014, the parties submitted briefs on the res judicata effect of the class action settlement and a decision is pending.

A purported class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and were not included in the class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the last statement balance for each plaintiff and punitive damages. A similar action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Florida Action”), although it is not styled as a class action, and the plaintiffs, in addition to net winners, include a small number of net loser opt-outs. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Florida Action which includes only net winners, includes a claim pursuant to a Florida statute and dismisses three common law claims that were included in the earlier complaint.

Three shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in New York federal and state court against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm’s relationship with Bernard Madoff and the alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions. The actions seek declaratory relief and damages. In July 2014, the federal court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss two of the actions and defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the remaining state court action.

MF Global. 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 Firm also 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.

Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Related Regulatory Investigations. JPMorgan Chase and affiliates (together, “JPMC”), Bear Stearns and affiliates (together, “Bear Stearns”) and certain 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 $48 billion, of which $42 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $6 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. Three purported class actions were 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 to settle one of these purported class actions, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. That settlement has received final court approval. 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 two pending actions relating to a monoline insurer’s guarantees of principal and interest on certain classes of 11 different Bear Stearns MBS offerings. These actions are pending in state court 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 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Washington Mutual and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (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 threatened litigation demands by securitization trustees, as well as demands by investors directing trustees to investigate claims or bring litigation, which allege obligations to repurchase loans and to address 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 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, JPMC and this investor group have made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by JPMC and Bear Stearns providing for the payment of $4.5 billion and the implementation of certain servicing changes 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 Washington Mutual MBS. On August 1, 2014, the trustees announced their determination to accept the offer in whole or in part for 310 of the 330 MBS trusts and to proceed with seeking judicial approval of such acceptance. The trustees rejected the settlement offer in whole or in part for six trusts that are subject to pending monoline insurer or repurchase litigation, and received a 60-day extension to solicit investor direction on whether the offer should be accepted for an additional 14 trusts and for certain loan groups in 13 trusts for which the offer was accepted in part on August 1, 2014.

There are additional repurchase and servicing claims made against trustees not affiliated with the Firm but involving trusts that the Firm sponsored.

Derivative Actions. Shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities have been filed 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. Two of the New York actions have been dismissed and defendants have filed, or intend to file, motions to dismiss the remaining actions.

Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation. 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 continuing to cooperate 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 residential and commercial 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.

One shareholder derivative action has 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. In June 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending.

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, three municipalities have commenced litigation against the Firm alleging violations of the FHA and ECOA and seeking damages in the form of lost tax revenue and increased municipal costs associated with foreclosed properties. A motion to dismiss has been filed in one of the actions.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is responding to inquiries by the Executive Office of the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee and various regional U.S. Bankruptcy Trustees relating to mortgage payment change notices and escrow statements in bankruptcy proceedings.

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 responding to and cooperating with the investigation.

Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. Various regulators 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 responding to and continuing to cooperate with these investigations.

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.

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 and amended to include JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a defendant, 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 affiliates 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 JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims. The defendants have filed additional motions as to that issue.

An action filed by certain holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt against JPMorgan Chase, which alleges 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 JPMorgan Chase 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. In accordance with the provisions of U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Firm accrues for a litigation-related liability when it is probable that such a 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 downward, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. The Firm incurred legal expense of $669 million and $678 million during the three months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, and $707 million and $1.0 billion during the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 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.