Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Legal And Regulatory Proceedings
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	18. 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 17 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. The court entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account will be returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The federal lawsuits have been tentatively transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. Refer to Note 17 for further information. 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 alleged that the Bancorp and its Ohio bank infringed on Katz's patents for interactive call processing technology by offering certain automated telephone banking and other services. On December 23, 2013 the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement amount was immaterial to the Bancorp's Consolidated Financial Statements. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Bank paid the agreed upon settlement proceeds to Katz resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice on January 8, 2014. 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 under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third Bancorp. et al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On December 18, 2012, the Bancorp entered into a settlement agreement to resolve these cases. Under the terms of the settlement, the Bancorp and its insurer paid a total of $16 million to a fund to settle all the claims of the class members. In the settlement the Bancorp has denied any liability and has agreed to the settlement in order to avoid potential future litigation costs and uncertainty. The Bancorp does not consider the impact of the settlement to be material to its financial condition or results of operations. On November 20, 2013, the Court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the settlement. No appeal was filed and the matter now is concluded. In addition to the foregoing, in 2008 two similar cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No. 1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On March 25, 2013 the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Solicitor General to file a brief stating the views of the United States on the issues raised in the Bancorp petition and this brief was filed on November 12, 2013. On December 13, 2013 the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal. Oral argument is set for April 2, 2014. 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 involved in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by various governmental regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities, as well as 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 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 authorities such as the Department of Justice or a United States Attorney. Among other matters, the Bancorp has been cooperating with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a civil investigation regarding compliance with requirements relating to certain Federal Housing Agency-insured loans originated by affiliates of the Bancorp. The investigation is ongoing, and no demand or claim has been made of the Bancorp. The investigation could lead to a demand under the federal False Claims Act and the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which allow up to treble and other special damages substantially in excess of actual losses. As previously disclosed the SEC had been investigating the Bancorp's historical accounting and reporting with respect to certain commercial loans that were sold or reclassified as held-for-sale in the fourth quarter of 2008. At dispute in the matter was whether certain of those loans should have been moved to held for sale in the third quarter rather than the fourth quarter of that year. The Bancorp and the SEC staff agreed to a settlement of that investigation, pursuant to which the Bancorp, without admitting or denying any factual allegations, consented to the SEC's issuance of an administrative order containing findings that the Bancorp did not properly account for a portion of its commercial real estate loan portfolio in its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2008 in violation of certain provisions of the securities laws, including Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The settlement also ordered the Bancorp to cease and desist from committing or causing any such violations in the future and to pay a civil penalty of $6.5 million. Daniel T. Poston, the Bancorp's interim chief financial officer during the relevant time, agreed to a separate settlement with the SEC staff pursuant to which Mr. Poston, without admitting or denying any factual allegations, consented to an administrative order containing similar findings and charges against him, a cease and desist order, a separate civil money penalty of $100,000, and a one-year ban from practicing before the SEC. The SEC approved the settlement on December 4, 2013 and this matter is now concluded. The Bancorp is party 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: plaintiff 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. A reserve 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 reserve 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 reserved. 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 proceedings including the matters discussed above in an aggregate amount up to approximately $113 million in excess of amounts reserved, 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 reserve that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, 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.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

18. 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 17 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. The court entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order in November 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4 million in another settlement escrow in connection with the settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class action. More than 7,900 merchants have requested exclusion from the class settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account will be returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. Approximately 460 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class have filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. The federal lawsuits have been tentatively transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Bancorp was not named as a defendant in any of the federal lawsuits, but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. In addition, one merchant filed a separate state court lawsuit against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants, including the Bancorp, alleging similar antitrust violations. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. Refer to Note 17 for further information.

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 alleged that the Bancorp and its Ohio bank infringed on Katz's patents for interactive call processing technology by offering certain automated telephone banking and other services. On December 23, 2013 the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement amount was immaterial to the Bancorp's Consolidated Financial Statements. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Bank paid the agreed upon settlement proceeds to Katz resulting in the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice on January 8, 2014.

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 under the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third Bancorp. et al., Case No. 1:08CV00421, and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On December 18, 2012, the Bancorp entered into a settlement agreement to resolve these cases. Under the terms of the settlement, the Bancorp and its insurer paid a total of $16 million to a fund to settle all the claims of the class members. In the settlement the Bancorp has denied any liability and has agreed to the settlement in order to avoid potential future litigation costs and uncertainty. The Bancorp does not consider the impact of the settlement to be material to its financial condition or results of operations. On November 20, 2013, the Court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the settlement. No appeal was filed and the matter now is concluded.

In addition to the foregoing, in 2008 two similar cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers styled Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. Case No. 1:08-cv-538. The complaints alleged violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set forth in the securities class action cases. The ERISA actions were dismissed by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision. The Bancorp petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending appeal. On March 25, 2013 the Supreme Court issued an order directing the Solicitor General to file a brief stating the views of the United States on the issues raised in the Bancorp petition and this brief was filed on November 12, 2013. On December 13, 2013 the Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal. Oral argument is set for April 2, 2014.

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 involved in information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by various governmental regulatory agencies and law enforcement authorities, as well as 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 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 authorities such as the Department of Justice or a United States Attorney. Among other matters, the Bancorp has been cooperating with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a civil investigation regarding compliance with requirements relating to certain Federal Housing Agency-insured loans originated by affiliates of the Bancorp. The investigation is ongoing, and no demand or claim has been made of the Bancorp. The investigation could lead to a demand under the federal False Claims Act and the federal Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, which allow up to treble and other special damages substantially in excess of actual losses.

As previously disclosed the SEC had been investigating the Bancorp's historical accounting and reporting with respect to certain commercial loans that were sold or reclassified as held-for-sale in the fourth quarter of 2008. At dispute in the matter was whether certain of those loans should have been moved to held for sale in the third quarter rather than the fourth quarter of that year. The Bancorp and the SEC staff agreed to a settlement of that investigation, pursuant to which the Bancorp, without admitting or denying any factual allegations, consented to the SEC's issuance of an administrative order containing findings that the Bancorp did not properly account for a portion of its commercial real estate loan portfolio in its Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2008 in violation of certain provisions of the securities laws, including Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The settlement also ordered the Bancorp to cease and desist from committing or causing any such violations in the future and to pay a civil penalty of $6.5 million. Daniel T. Poston, the Bancorp's interim chief financial officer during the relevant time, agreed to a separate settlement with the SEC staff pursuant to which Mr. Poston, without admitting or denying any factual allegations, consented to an administrative order containing similar findings and charges against him, a cease and desist order, a separate civil money penalty of $100,000, and a one-year ban from practicing before the SEC. The SEC approved the settlement on December 4, 2013 and this matter is now concluded.

The Bancorp is party 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: plaintiff 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. A reserve 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 reserve 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 reserved. 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 proceedings including the matters discussed above in an aggregate amount up to approximately $113 million in excess of amounts reserved, 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 reserve that cannot be estimated. Based on information currently available, advice of counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, 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.