Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Legal And Regulatory Proceedings
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	20. 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. 05-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. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit’s decision. 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 approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are currently 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 June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking monetary damages (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement agreement (the “Amended Settlement Agreement”) 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 $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.3 billion held in escrow and an additional $900 million. The Bancorp’s allocated share of the putative settlement is within existing reserves. If more than 15% of class members (by payment volume) opt out of the class, up to $700 million of the settlement payment may be returned to the defendants. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff Damages Class filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2019, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for November 7, 2019. This settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who are pursuing separate 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-00851). 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 January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ appeal was held on January 29, 2019. 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. Fifth Third denied all liability. 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. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2018. The appeal is pending. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank On February 12, 2016, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (“Upsher-Smith”) filed suit against Fifth Third Bank in the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that Fifth Third improperly implemented foreign exchange transactions requested by plaintiff’s authorized employee who allegedly was the victim of fraud by a third party. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for alleged failure to comply with Article 4A-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC claim”), with losses allegedly totaling almost $40 million, plus interest. Fifth Third denied all liability in this matter. On March 3, 2016, Fifth Third removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 16-cv-00556). On March 22, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment to Fifth Third on Upsher-Smith’s claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but denied summary judgment on the UCC claim. The case is currently scheduled to be ready for trial on May 20, 2019. 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 $54 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.

20. 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. 05-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. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit’s decision. 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 approximately 75% of the settlement funds paid by the Bancorp are currently 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 June 5, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action reached an agreement to settle in principle with the proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking monetary damages (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”). On September 17, 2018, those parties signed a settlement agreement (the “Amended Settlement Agreement”) 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 $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.3 billion held in escrow and an additional $900 million. The Bancorp’s allocated share of the putative settlement is within existing reserves. If more than 15% of class members (by payment volume) opt out of the class, up to $700 million of the settlement payment may be returned to the defendants. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff Damages Class filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2019, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for November 7, 2019. This settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who are pursuing separate 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-00851). 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 January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ appeal was held on January 29, 2019.

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. Fifth Third denied all liability. 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. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2018. The appeal is pending.

Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank

On February 12, 2016, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. (“Upsher-Smith”) filed suit against Fifth Third Bank in the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging that Fifth Third improperly implemented foreign exchange transactions requested by plaintiff’s authorized employee who allegedly was the victim of fraud by a third party. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for alleged failure to comply with Article 4A-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC claim”), with losses allegedly totaling almost $40 million, plus interest. Fifth Third denied all liability in this matter. On March 3, 2016, Fifth Third removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Upsher-Smith Laboratories Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 16-cv-00556). On March 22, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment to Fifth Third on Upsher-Smith’s claims for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but denied summary judgment on the UCC claim. The case is currently scheduled to be ready for trial on May 20, 2019.

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 $54 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.