Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Loss Contingency [Abstract]

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

Litigation

Visa/MasterCard Merchant Interchange Litigation

In April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa®, MasterCard® and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 19 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was initially approved by the trial court but reversed by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already returned to the control of the defendants. The remaining settlement funds paid by the Bancorp have been maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the “Amended Settlement Agreement”) resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs’ class (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”) and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $700 million of the additional $900 million has been returned to the defendants due to the level of opt-outs from the class. The Bancorp’s allocated share of the settlement is within existing reserves, including funds maintained in escrow. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, therefore remains uncertain. Refer to Note 19 for further information.

Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million. The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was filed on April 20, 2020 and is now fully briefed and awaiting decision. No trial date has been set.

Helton v. Fifth Third Bank

On August 31, 2015, trust beneficiaries filed an action against Fifth Third Bank, as trustee, in the Probate Court for Hamilton County, Ohio (Helen Clarke Helton, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 2015003814). The plaintiffs alleged breach of the duty to diversify, breach of the duty of impartiality, breach of trust/fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, based on Fifth Third’s alleged failure to diversify assets held in two trusts for the plaintiffs’ benefit. The lawsuit sought over $800 million in alleged damages, attorney’s fees, removal of Fifth Third as trustee, and injunctive relief. On April 20, 2018, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Fifth Third, dismissing the case in its entirety. On December 18, 2019, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Probate Court’s dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims based upon allegations of Fifth Third’s alleged failure to diversify assets held in two trusts for plaintiffs’ benefit. The appeals court reversed summary judgment on one claim related to Fifth Third’s alleged unjust enrichment through its receipt of certain fees in managing the trusts. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Probate Court for further consideration of the lone surviving claim, which comprises a small fraction of the damages originally sought by plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court announced its denial of

plaintiffs’ request for review, and subsequently denied plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration. Thereafter, the case returned to the trial court for further adjudication of the lone surviving claim. On January 8, 2021 the trial court issued an order denying Fifth Third’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim leaving it to be resolved at trial.

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association

On March 9, 2020, the CFPB filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled CFPB v. Fifth Third Bank, National Association, Case No. 1:20-CV-1683 (N.D. Ill.) (ABW), alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, TILA, and Truth in Savings Act related to Fifth Third’s alleged opening of unspecified numbers of allegedly unauthorized credit card, savings, checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010 through 2016. The CFPB seeks unspecified amounts of civil monetary penalties as well as unspecified customer remediation. On February 12, 2021, the court granted Fifth Third's motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The Bancorp is also subject to a consumer class action related to the alleged opening of unauthorized accounts.

Shareholder Litigation

On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Christakis filed a putative class action against Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third President and Chief Executive Officer Greg D. Carmichael, and former Fifth Third Chief Financial Officer Tayfun Tuzun in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Lee Christakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill). The case brings two claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the Defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection with the alleged unauthorized opening of credit card, savings, checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010 through 2016. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 29, 2020, the Court appointed Heavy & General Laborers’ Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead plaintiff, and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff. On September 14, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its amended consolidated complaint.

On July 31, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action captioned Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No. 2020CH05219 was filed on behalf of former shareholders of MB Financial, Inc. in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court. The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain of its officers and directors made material misstatements and omissions regarding the alleged improper cross-selling strategy in filings made in connection with the Bancorp’s merger with MB Financial, Inc.

In addition, shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed seeking monetary damages on behalf of the Bancorp alleging certain claims against various officers and directors relating to an alleged improper cross-selling strategy. Four lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Fifth Third Bancorp Derivative Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-04115. Those cases consist of: (1) Pemberton v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. 20-cv-4115 (filed July 13, 2020); (2) Meyer v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. 20-cv-4244 (filed July 17, 2020); (3) Cox v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. 20-cv-4660 (filed August 7, 2020); and (4) Hansen v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. 20-cv-5339 (filed September 10, 2020). Also pending are shareholder derivative matters Reese v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. 20-cv-866 pending in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Ohio (filed November 4, 2020) and Sandys v. Carmichael, et al., Case No. A2004539 pending in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (filed December 28, 2020). The Bancorp has also received several shareholder demands under Ohio Rev. Code § 1701.37(c) and lawsuits have been filed arising out of the same. Finally, the Bancorp has received a shareholder demand that the Bancorp’s Board of Directors investigate and commence a civil action for failure to detect and/or prevent the alleged illegal cross-selling strategy. The shareholder subsequently filed the aforementioned Sandys v. Carmichael, et al. matter.

Other litigation

The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are not parties to any other material litigation. However, there are other litigation matters that arise in the normal course of business. While it is impossible to ascertain the ultimate resolution or range of financial liability with respect to these contingent matters, management believes that the resulting liability, if any, from these other actions would not have a material effect upon the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Governmental Investigations and Proceedings

The Bancorp and/or its affiliates are or may become involved in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by various governmental regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities, including but not limited to the FRB, OCC, CFPB, SEC, FINRA, U.S. Department of Justice, etc., as well as state and other governmental authorities and self-regulatory bodies regarding their respective businesses. Additional matters will likely arise from time to time. Any of these matters may result in material adverse consequences or reputational harm to the Bancorp, its affiliates and/or their respective directors, officers and other personnel, including adverse judgments, findings, settlements, fines, penalties, orders, injunctions or other actions, amendments and/or restatements of the Bancorp’s SEC filings and/or financial statements, as applicable, and/or determinations of material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. Investigations by regulatory authorities may from time to time result in civil or criminal referrals to law enforcement. Additionally, in some cases, regulatory authorities may take supervisory actions that are considered to be confidential supervisory information which may not be publicly disclosed.

Reasonably Possible Losses in Excess of Accruals

The Bancorp and its subsidiaries are parties to numerous claims and lawsuits as well as threatened or potential actions or claims concerning matters arising from the conduct of its business activities. The outcome of claims or litigation and the timing of ultimate resolution are inherently difficult to predict. The following factors, among others, contribute to this lack of predictability: claims often include significant legal uncertainties, damages alleged by plaintiffs are often unspecified or overstated, discovery may not have started or may not be complete and material facts may be disputed or unsubstantiated. As a result of these factors, the Bancorp is not always able to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible outcomes for each claim. An accrual for a potential litigation loss is established when information related to the loss contingency indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. Any such accrual is adjusted from time to time thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances. The Bancorp also determines, when possible (due to the uncertainties described above), estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses, in excess of amounts accrued. Under U.S. GAAP, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Bancorp is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Bancorp believes the risk of loss is more than slight. For matters where the Bancorp is able to estimate such possible losses or ranges of possible losses, the Bancorp currently estimates that it is reasonably possible that it could incur losses related to legal and regulatory proceedings in an aggregate amount up to approximately $65 million in excess of amounts accrued, with it also being reasonably possible that no losses will be incurred in these matters. The estimates included in this amount are based on the Bancorp’s analysis of currently available information, and as new information is obtained the Bancorp may change its estimates.

For these matters and others where an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, there may be a range of possible losses in excess of the established accrual that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established accruals, the Bancorp believes that the eventual outcome of the actions against the Bancorp and/or its subsidiaries, including the matters described above, will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the Bancorp’s results of operations for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the size of the loss or liability imposed and the operating results for the applicable period.