Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
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, 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 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. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. The appellate court held a hearing on those appeals on September 28, 2015, and the matter is under consideration. In addition, on July 28, 2015, the merchants who oppose the class settlement filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the order approving the settlement because of alleged misconduct by one of the merchant class counsel in another case and a former attorney for MasterCard. Defendants opposed the motion on August 17, 2015. The court has not set a hearing on the motion. 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. Approximately 8,000 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 have been returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. More than 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. These “opt-out” federal lawsuits have been 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 opt-out 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. The state court lawsuit has been settled. On July 18, 2015, the court in which all but one of the opt-out federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. Refer to Note 17 for further information. On January 15, 2016, the Bancorp agreed to pay $6 million and make certain changes to the Bancorp's profit sharing plan to settle two class action lawsuits consolidated as Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. (Case No. 1:08-cv-538) filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaints alleged that the Bancorp and certain officers violated ERISA by continuing to offer Fifth Third stock in the Bancorp's profit sharing plan when it was no longer a prudent investment. The settlement is subject to court approval. In November 2014, a shareholder of the Bancorp filed a shareholder derivative suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio, against current and former members of the Bancorp's Board of Directors, the Bancorp's former Chief Financial Officer, Daniel T. Poston, the Bancorp's former Chief Executive Officer, Kevin T. Kabat, and, nominally, the Bancorp. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the Bancorp's alleged violations of federal and state securities laws, among other charges, in relation to its administrative settlement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced on December 4, 2013 to resolve the previously reported investigation of the Bancorp's historical accounting and reporting with respect to certain commercial loans that were sold or reclassified as held for sale by the Bancorp in the fourth quarter of 2008. The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of profits, certain corporate governance and personnel actions and compliance and disclosure changes. On January 16, 2015, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on behalf of all defendants, which the plaintiff opposed. On May 18, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and no appeal was filed. This matter has been concluded. 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 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. 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. On September 30, 2015, the Bancorp agreed to pay approximately $85 million to cover losses on approximately 500 loans for which HUD had paid FHA insurance claims, and an additional $2 million to HUD, in connection with the Bancorp's entry into a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal with the Department of Justice and HUD, which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 5, 2015, and a related Settlement Agreement with HUD. The total amount is within the amount the Bancorp had previously included in its accrual for this matter. The Bancorp has also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses related to approximately 900 loans which have not been the subject of mortgage insurance claims. The settlement resulted in part from the Bancorp's voluntary disclosure of approximately 1,400 mortgages that it had previously certified as eligible for FHA insurance but which were later determined to be ineligible for such insurance. On September 28, 2015, the Bancorp entered into consent orders and agreed, without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), to pay $18 million to consumers in a settlement with the Department of Justice and the CFPB related to an investigation into whether Fifth Third Bank engaged in any discriminatory practices in connection with the Bank's indirect automobile loan portfolio. This amount is within the amount included in the Bancorp's accrual for this matter. This total amount is also subject to a credit of between $5 million and $6 million for remediation the Bancorp had already paid. The consent orders also provide that the Bancorp will implement a new dealer compensation policy and that the Bancorp's Board of Directors will oversee its compliance with the consent orders. On September 28, 2015, the Bancorp agreed to pay an amount not less than $3 million in redress to consumers and a civil penalty of $500,000 to the CFPB in connection with its entry into a consent order with the CFPB related to the marketing and administration of the Bancorp's debt protection credit card “add-on” product for those enrolled in the product from January 1, 2007, through November 11, 2013. This $3.5 million is within the amount the Bancorp had included in its accrual for this matter. As part of this settlement, the Bancorp has also agreed, without admitting or denying any findings of fact or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), to adopt a compliance plan with respect to the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering or sale of any credit card add-on products, the performance of any such products and the management of its vendors with respect to such products and not to market or sell similar debt protection add-on products without first securing a determination of non-objection from the CFPB. 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: 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. 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 $37 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.

Legal and Regulatory Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2015

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, 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 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. On January 14, 2014, the court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants have filed appeals from that approval. The appellate court held a hearing on those appeals on September 28, 2015, and the matter is under consideration. In addition, on July 28, 2015, the merchants who oppose the class settlement filed a motion in the District Court to set aside the order approving the settlement because of alleged misconduct by one of the merchant class counsel in another case and a former attorney for MasterCard. Defendants opposed the motion on August 17, 2015. The court has not set a hearing on the motion. 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. Approximately 8,000 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 have been returned to the control of the defendants through Class Exclusion Takedown Payments. More than 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. These “opt-out” federal lawsuits have been 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 opt-out 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. The state court lawsuit has been settled. On July 18, 2015, the court in which all but one of the opt-out federal lawsuits have been consolidated denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints. Refer to Note 17 for further information.

On January 15, 2016, the Bancorp agreed to pay $6 million and make certain changes to the Bancorp's profit sharing plan to settle two class action lawsuits consolidated as Dudenhoeffer v Fifth Third Bancorp et al. (Case No. 1:08-cv-538) filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The complaints alleged that the Bancorp and certain officers violated ERISA by continuing to offer Fifth Third stock in the Bancorp's profit sharing plan when it was no longer a prudent investment. The settlement is subject to court approval.

In November 2014, a shareholder of the Bancorp filed a shareholder derivative suit in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio, against current and former members of the Bancorp's Board of Directors, the Bancorp's former Chief Financial Officer, Daniel T. Poston, the Bancorp's former Chief Executive Officer, Kevin T. Kabat, and, nominally, the Bancorp. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment in connection with the Bancorp's alleged violations of federal and state securities laws, among other charges, in relation to its administrative settlement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission announced on December 4, 2013 to resolve the previously reported investigation of the Bancorp's historical accounting and reporting with respect to certain commercial loans that were sold or reclassified as held for sale by the Bancorp in the fourth quarter of 2008. The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of profits, certain corporate governance and personnel actions and compliance and disclosure changes. On January 16, 2015, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on behalf of all defendants, which the plaintiff opposed. On May 18, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and no appeal was filed. This matter has been concluded.

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 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.

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.

On September 30, 2015, the Bancorp agreed to pay approximately $85 million to cover losses on approximately 500 loans for which HUD had paid FHA insurance claims, and an additional $2 million to HUD, in connection with the Bancorp's entry into a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal with the Department of Justice and HUD, which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 5, 2015, and a related Settlement Agreement with HUD. The total amount is within the amount the Bancorp had previously included in its accrual for this matter. The Bancorp has also agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses related to approximately 900 loans which have not been the subject of mortgage insurance claims. The settlement resulted in part from the Bancorp's voluntary disclosure of approximately 1,400 mortgages that it had previously certified as eligible for FHA insurance but which were later determined to be ineligible for such insurance.

On September 28, 2015, the Bancorp entered into consent orders and agreed, without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), to pay $18 million to consumers in a settlement with the Department of Justice and the CFPB related to an investigation into whether Fifth Third Bank engaged in any discriminatory practices in connection with the Bank's indirect automobile loan portfolio. This amount is within the amount included in the Bancorp's accrual for this matter. This total amount is also subject to a credit of between $5 million and $6 million for remediation the Bancorp had already paid. The consent orders also provide that the Bancorp will implement a new dealer compensation policy and that the Bancorp's Board of Directors will oversee its compliance with the consent orders.

On September 28, 2015, the Bancorp agreed to pay an amount not less than $3 million in redress to consumers and a civil penalty of $500,000 to the CFPB in connection with its entry into a consent order with the CFPB related to the marketing and administration of the Bancorp's debt protection credit card “add-on” product for those enrolled in the product from January 1, 2007, through November 11, 2013. This $3.5 million is within the amount the Bancorp had included in its accrual for this matter. As part of this settlement, the Bancorp has also agreed, without admitting or denying any findings of fact or conclusions of law (except to establish jurisdiction), to adopt a compliance plan with respect to the advertising, marketing, promotion, offering or sale of any credit card add-on products, the performance of any such products and the management of its vendors with respect to such products and not to market or sell similar debt protection add-on products without first securing a determination of non-objection from the CFPB.

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: 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. 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 $37 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.