Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	13. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings During 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. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 12 and has also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the event certain settlements or judgments occur. Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp had recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its potential exposure in this and related litigation. Additionally, the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share of $199 million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings. Upon the Bancorp’s sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the Bancorp’s exposure through Visa. Additionally, the Bancorp has remaining reserves related to this litigation of $31 million, $30 million and $26 million as of June 30, 2011, December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010, respectively. Refer to Note 12 for further information regarding the Bancorp’s net litigation reserve and ownership interest in Visa. This antitrust litigation is still in the pre-trial phase. In September 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (Katz) filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and its Ohio banking subsidiary. In the suit, Katz alleges that the Bancorp and its Ohio bank are infringing on Katz’s patents for interactive call processing technology by offering certain automated telephone banking and other services. This lawsuit is one of many related patent infringement suits brought by Katz in various courts against numerous other defendants. Katz is seeking unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well as injunctive relief in the suit. Management believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. The impact of the final disposition of this lawsuit cannot be assessed at this time. For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the Bancorp’s securities, or acquired the Bancorp’s securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation. These cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation. The impact of the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time. In addition to the foregoing, two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers alleging violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases filed during the same period of time. The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court, and are being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 16, 2010, Edward P. Zemprelli (Zemprelli) filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit was a purported derivative action brought by a shareholder of the Bancorp against certain of the Bancorp’s officers and directors, and which named the Bancorp as a nominal defendant. In the lawsuit, Zemprelli brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against the defendant officers and directors. The alleged basis for these claims was that the defendant officers and directors attempted to disguise from the public the truth about the credit quality of the Bancorp’s loan portfolio, its capital position, and its need to raise capital. Zemprelli, on behalf of the Bancorp, brought unspecified money damages allegedly sustained by the Bancorp as a result of the defendants’ conduct, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2011, the Court advised counsel that it decided to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint. An entry of dismissal is being prepared. 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 any resulting liability from these other actions would not have a material effect upon the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Bancorp and/or its affiliates are or may become involved from time to time in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the SEC, regarding their respective businesses. Such matters may result in material adverse consequences, including without limitation, adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other actions, amendments and/or restatements of Fifth Third’s SEC filings and/or financial statements, as applicable, and/or determinations of material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. The SEC is investigating and has made several requests for information, including by subpoena, concerning issues which Fifth Third understands relate to accounting and reporting matters involving certain of its commercial loans. This could lead to an enforcement proceeding by the SEC which, in turn, may result in one or more such material adverse consequences. On May 16, 2011, the Bancorp caused a notice to be delivered to the trustee of Fifth Third Capital Trust VII (the “Trust”) to mandatorily redeem the 8.875% trust preferred securities of the Trust (the “Trust Preferred Securities”) at an aggregate cash redemption price of $25.18 per Trust Preferred Security. The Trust Preferred Securities were listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”). The NYSE was notified of the redemption on May 17, 2011 and a Current Report on Form 8-K describing the redemption notice was filed by the Company with the SEC on May 18, 2011. Trading in this security was halted by the NYSE shortly after this Form 8-K was filed and did not resume until May 19, 2011. The Trust Preferred Securities traded at prices above the redemption amount during the period between the time the trustee was notified and before the Form 8-K describing the redemption was filed. The Bancorp was neither a party to nor a participant in any trading of the Trust Preferred Securities during such period or thereafter. As announced on May 25, 2011, the Bancorp is voluntarily compensating persons who purchased these Trust Preferred Securities after the redemption notice was delivered on May 16, 2011 and before trading was halted in the security on May 18, 2011. The Bancorp anticipates that the total amount of compensation payments in this matter will not exceed approximately $1.5 million. The SEC is investigating and has made requests for information, including by subpoena, concerning the circumstances and related issues surrounding the notification and disclosure process and timing thereof in connection with such redemption of the Trust Preferred Securities. The Bancorp has been cooperating with those requests. On August 1, 2011, the Bancorp received a “Wells notice” from the staff of the SEC advising the Bancorp that the staff has reached a preliminary conclusion to recommend that the Commission authorize the staff to file an enforcement action against the Bancorp relating to such matter for violation of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD. A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or finding of wrongdoing. The Wells notice provides the Bancorp with the opportunity to respond to issues raised by the staff prior to any decision on an enforcement proceeding by the SEC. The Bancorp intends to respond and explain why it believes that an enforcement action is unwarranted. There is no assurance, however, that the SEC’s staff will agree with the Bancorp’s position. The SEC’s investigation could lead to an enforcement action, which, in turn, may result in one or more of the adverse consequences discussed above.

13. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

During 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. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 12 and has also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the event certain settlements or judgments occur. Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the Bancorp had recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to account for its potential exposure in this and related litigation. Additionally, the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share of $199 million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds from the Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings. Upon the Bancorp’s sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and the recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the Bancorp’s exposure through Visa. Additionally, the Bancorp has remaining reserves related to this litigation of $31 million, $30 million and $26 million as of June 30, 2011, December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010, respectively. Refer to Note 12 for further information regarding the Bancorp’s net litigation reserve and ownership interest in Visa. This antitrust litigation is still in the pre-trial phase.

In September 2007, Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. (Katz) filed a suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and its Ohio banking subsidiary. In the suit, Katz alleges that the Bancorp and its Ohio bank are infringing on Katz’s patents for interactive call processing technology by offering certain automated telephone banking and other services. This lawsuit is one of many related patent infringement suits brought by Katz in various courts against numerous other defendants. Katz is seeking unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well as injunctive relief in the suit. Management believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. The impact of the final disposition of this lawsuit cannot be assessed at this time.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities class action complaints were filed against the Bancorp and its Chief Executive Officer, among other parties. The five cases have been consolidated, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either purchased the Bancorp’s securities, or acquired the Bancorp’s securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter Corporation. These cases remain in the discovery stages of litigation. The impact of the final disposition of these lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time. In addition to the foregoing, two cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers alleging violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases filed during the same period of time. The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed by the trial court, and are being appealed to the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 16, 2010, Edward P. Zemprelli (Zemprelli) filed a lawsuit in the Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit was a purported derivative action brought by a shareholder of the Bancorp against certain of the Bancorp’s officers and directors, and which named the Bancorp as a nominal defendant. In the lawsuit, Zemprelli brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against the defendant officers and directors. The alleged basis for these claims was that the defendant officers and directors attempted to disguise from the public the truth about the credit quality of the Bancorp’s loan portfolio, its capital position, and its need to raise capital. Zemprelli, on behalf of the Bancorp, brought unspecified money damages allegedly sustained by the Bancorp as a result of the defendants’ conduct, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2011, the Court advised counsel that it decided to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint. An entry of dismissal is being prepared.

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 any resulting liability from these other actions would not have a material effect upon the Bancorp’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The Bancorp and/or its affiliates are or may become involved from time to time in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the SEC, regarding their respective businesses. Such matters may result in material adverse consequences, including without limitation, adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other actions, amendments and/or restatements of Fifth Third’s SEC filings and/or financial statements, as applicable, and/or determinations of material weaknesses in our disclosure controls and procedures. The SEC is investigating and has made several requests for information, including by subpoena, concerning issues which Fifth Third understands relate to accounting and reporting matters involving certain of its commercial loans. This could lead to an enforcement proceeding by the SEC which, in turn, may result in one or more such material adverse consequences.

On May 16, 2011, the Bancorp caused a notice to be delivered to the trustee of Fifth Third Capital Trust VII (the “Trust”) to mandatorily redeem the 8.875% trust preferred securities of the Trust (the “Trust Preferred Securities”) at an aggregate cash redemption price of $25.18 per Trust Preferred Security. The Trust Preferred Securities were listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”). The NYSE was notified of the redemption on May 17, 2011 and a Current Report on Form 8-K describing the redemption notice was filed by the Company with the SEC on May 18, 2011. Trading in this security was halted by the NYSE shortly after this Form 8-K was filed and did not resume until May 19, 2011. The Trust Preferred Securities traded at prices above the redemption amount during the period between the time the trustee was notified and before the Form 8-K describing the redemption was filed. The Bancorp was neither a party to nor a participant in any trading of the Trust Preferred Securities during such period or thereafter. As announced on May 25, 2011, the Bancorp is voluntarily compensating persons who purchased these Trust Preferred Securities after the redemption notice was delivered on May 16, 2011 and before trading was halted in the security on May 18, 2011. The Bancorp anticipates that the total amount of compensation payments in this matter will not exceed approximately $1.5 million. The SEC is investigating and has made requests for information, including by subpoena, concerning the circumstances and related issues surrounding the notification and disclosure process and timing thereof in connection with such redemption of the Trust Preferred Securities. The Bancorp has been cooperating with those requests. On August 1, 2011, the Bancorp received a “Wells notice” from the staff of the SEC advising the Bancorp that the staff has reached a preliminary conclusion to recommend that the Commission authorize the staff to file an enforcement action against the Bancorp relating to such matter for violation of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD. A Wells notice is not a formal allegation or finding of wrongdoing. The Wells notice provides the Bancorp with the opportunity to respond to issues raised by the staff prior to any decision on an enforcement proceeding by the SEC. The Bancorp intends to respond and explain why it believes that an enforcement action is unwarranted. There is no assurance, however, that the SEC’s staff will agree with the Bancorp’s position. The SEC’s investigation could lead to an enforcement action, which, in turn, may result in one or more of the adverse consequences discussed above.