Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Litigation [Abstract]
LITIGATION	Litigation Contingencies As of March 31, 2012, the Firm and its subsidiaries are defendants or putative defendants in numerous legal proceedings, including private, civil litigations and regulatory/government investigations. The litigations range from individual actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially millions of class members. Investigations involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. These legal proceedings are at varying stages of adjudication, arbitration or investigation, and involve each of the Firm’s lines of business and geographies and a wide variety of claims (including common law tort and contract claims and statutory antitrust, securities and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel legal theories. The Firm believes the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its legal proceedings is from $0 to approximately $4.2 billion at March 31, 2012. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm is involved, taking into account the Firm’s best estimate of such losses for those cases for which such estimate can be made. For certain cases, the Firm does not believe that an estimate can currently be made. The Firm’s estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many are currently in preliminary stages), the existence in many such proceedings of multiple defendants (including the Firm) whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings (including issues regarding class certification and the scope of many of the claims) and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may be more than the current estimate. Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings. Auction-Rate Securities Investigations and Litigation. Beginning in March 2008, several regulatory authorities initiated investigations of a number of industry participants, including the Firm, concerning possible state and federal securities law violations in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities (“ARS”). The market for many such securities had frozen and a significant number of auctions for those securities began to fail in February 2008. The Firm, on behalf of itself and affiliates, agreed to a settlement in principle with the New York Attorney General’s Office which provided, among other things, that the Firm would offer to purchase at par certain ARS purchased from J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Chase Investment Services Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. by individual investors, charities and small- to medium-sized businesses. The Firm also agreed to a substantively similar settlement in principle with the Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida and the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) Task Force, which agreed to recommend approval of the settlement to all remaining states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Firm has finalized the settlement agreements with the New York Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida. The settlement agreements provide for the payment of penalties totaling $25 million to all states. The Firm is currently in the process of finalizing consent agreements with NASAA’s member states; more than 45 of these consent agreements have been finalized to date. The Firm also faces a number of civil actions before courts and arbitration panels relating to the Firm’s sales of ARS. The actions generally allege that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for ARS by placing bids at auctions that affected these securities’ clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing these activities. The Firm’s motion to dismiss a putative class action that had been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ARS was granted in March 2012. Additionally, the Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions. The actions allege that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the ARS market and then to withdraw their support for the ARS market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions. An appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Matters. The Bear Stearns Companies LLC (formerly The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.) (“Bear Stearns”), certain current or former subsidiaries of Bear Stearns, including Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc. (“BSAM”) and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and certain individuals formerly employed by Bear Stearns are named defendants (collectively the “Bear Stearns defendants”) in multiple civil actions and arbitrations relating to alleged losses resulting from the failure of the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. (the “High Grade Fund”) and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. (the “Enhanced Leverage Fund”) (collectively the “Funds”). BSAM served as investment manager for both of the Funds, which were organized such that there were U.S. and Cayman Islands “feeder funds” that invested substantially all their assets, directly or indirectly, in the Funds. The Funds are in liquidation. There are currently three civil actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Funds. One of these actions involves a derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the U.S. feeder fund to the Enhanced Leverage Fund, alleging that the Bear Stearns defendants mismanaged the Funds. This action seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages based on alleged investor losses. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this derivative action, pursuant to which BSAM would pay a maximum of approximately $18 million. In April 2012, the Court granted final approval of this settlement. (A separate derivative action, also alleging that the Bear Stearns defendants mismanaged the Funds, was brought on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the U.S. feeder fund to the High Grade Fund, and was dismissed following a Court-approved settlement with similar terms, pursuant to which BSAM paid approximately $19 million). The second pending action, brought by the Joint Voluntary Liquidators of the Cayman Islands feeder funds, makes allegations similar to those asserted in the derivative lawsuits related to the U.S. feeder funds, alleges net losses of approximately $700 million and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The parties presently are engaged in discovery. The third action was brought by Bank of America and Banc of America Securities LLC (together “BofA”) alleging breach of contract and fraud in connection with a $4 billion securitization in May 2007 known as a “CDO-squared,” for which BSAM served as collateral manager. This securitization was composed of certain collateralized debt obligation holdings that were purchased by BofA from the Funds. BofA currently seeks damages up to approximately $535 million. Discovery has concluded. BofA recently filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to reinstate and amend a previously dismissed claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Bear Stearns Shareholder Litigation and Related Matters. Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the “Class Period”). During the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 million and 120 million common shares outstanding, and the price per share of those securities declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period. The actions, originally commenced in several federal courts, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns’ business and financial results and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns’ common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In addition, several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have also commenced or threatened to commence their own arbitration proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the putative class actions. Certain of these matters have been dismissed or settled. Separately, an agreement in principle has been reached to resolve a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the management of that Plan. Under the settlement, which remains subject to final documentation and court approval, the class will receive $10 million. Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns’ Board of Directors and certain of Bear Stearns’ former executive officers have also been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class action suit which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock. Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The District Court dismissed the action, and plaintiffs have appealed. City of Milan Litigation and Criminal Investigation. In January 2009, the City of Milan, Italy (the “City”) issued civil proceedings against (among others) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (together, “JPMorgan Chase”) in the District Court of Milan. The proceedings relate to (a) a bond issue by the City in June 2005 (the “Bond”), and (b) an associated swap transaction, which was subsequently restructured on a number of occasions between 2005 and 2007 (the “Swap”). The City seeks damages and/or other remedies against JPMorgan Chase (among others) on the grounds of alleged “fraudulent and deceitful acts” and alleged breach of advisory obligations in connection with the Swap and the Bond, together with related swap transactions with other counterparties. The Firm has entered into a settlement agreement with the City to resolve the City’s civil proceedings, in consequence of which the City will no longer be a party to the criminal proceedings discussed below. In March 2010, a criminal judge directed four current and former JPMorgan Chase personnel and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as well as other individuals and three other banks) to go forward to a full trial that started in May 2010. Although the Firm is not charged with any crime and does not face criminal liability, if one or more of its employees were found guilty, the Firm could be subject to administrative sanctions, including restrictions on its ability to conduct business in Italy and monetary penalties. Hearings have continued on a weekly basis since May 2010. Enron Litigation. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are involved in several lawsuits seeking damages arising out of the Firm’s banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Enron”). A number of actions and other proceedings against the Firm previously were resolved, including a class action lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings brought by Enron’s bankruptcy estate. The remaining Enron-related actions include an individual action by an Enron investor, an action by an Enron counterparty and a purported class action filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm’s 401(k) plan asserting claims under ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers. The class action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Motions to dismiss are pending in the other two actions. FERC Investigation. JPMorgan Chase’s commodities business owns or has the right to output from several electricity generating facilities. The Firm is responding to requests for information in connection with an investigation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding bidding practices by this business in certain organized power markets. Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action complaints in several federal courts. The complaints allege that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that interchange fees would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged conduct. All cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings. The Court has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January 2004. The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the remainder of the case or plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Fact and expert discovery have closed. In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of MasterCard and Visa (the “IPO Complaints”). With respect to the MasterCard IPO, plaintiffs allege that the offering violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance. With respect to the Visa IPO, plaintiffs are challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the IPO Complaints. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions. The parties also have filed motions seeking summary judgment as to various claims in the complaints. Oral argument on these summary judgment motions was heard in November 2011. The Firm and the other defendants remain actively involved in settlement discussions under the supervision of the court. Investment Management Litigation. Four cases have been filed claiming that investment portfolios managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMorgan Investment Management”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by subprime residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan Investment Management and related defendants are liable for losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. The first case was filed by NM Homes One, Inc. in federal District Court in New York. Following rulings on motions addressed to the pleadings, plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence survive, and discovery is proceeding. In the second case, filed by Assured Guaranty (U.K.) in New York state court, discovery is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence. In the third case, filed by Ambac Assurance UK Limited in New York state court, the lower court granted JPMorgan Investment Management’s motion to dismiss. The New York State Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision and discovery is proceeding. The fourth case, filed by CMMF LLP in New York state court, asserts claims under New York law for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The lower court denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and discovery is proceeding. Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. In May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) filed a complaint (and later an amended complaint) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and seeks, among other relief, to recover $8.6 billion in collateral that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also seeks unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s demise. In February 2012, JPMorgan Asset Management and Highbridge Capital Management reached a settlement with LBHI and the Committee, which had the result of returning to LBHI $700 million of the $8.6 billion of collateral sought by the amended complaint. The Firm moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in its entirety, and also moved to transfer the litigation from the Bankruptcy Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court directed the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion to dismiss while the District Court is considering the transfer motion. In April 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the counts of the amended complaint seeking avoidance of the allegedly constructively fraudulent and preferential transfers made to the Firm during the months of August and September 2008. The Court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss as to the other claims, including claims that allege intentional misconduct. The District Court has not yet ruled on the transfer motion. The Firm also filed counterclaims against LBHI alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large clearing advances to Lehman against inappropriate collateral, which left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims (the “Clearing Claims”) against the estate of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. These claims have been paid in full, subject to the outcome of the litigation. Discovery is underway, with any trial unlikely to begin before 2013. In August 2011, LBHI and the Committee filed an objection to the deficiency claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to the Clearing Claims, principally on the grounds that the Firm had not conducted the sale of the securities collateral held for such claims in a commercially reasonable manner. On April 4, 2012, the Firm entered into a settlement with the CFTC to resolve the CFTC’s Lehman-related investigation of the Firm, and pursuant to which the Firm paid $20 million. LIBOR Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase has received various subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from the United States Department of Justice, United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, European Commission, United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, Canadian Competition Bureau and Swiss Competition Commission. The documents and information sought all relate to the process by which rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association (“BBA”) in connection with the setting of the BBA’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), principally in 2007 and 2008. The inquiries from some of the regulators also relate to similar processes by which EURIBOR rates are submitted to the European Banking Federation and TIBOR rates are submitted to the Japanese Bankers’ Association during similar time periods. The Firm is cooperating with these inquiries. In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in various U.S. federal courts alleging that since 2006 the defendants either individually suppressed the LIBOR rate artificially or colluded in submitting rates for LIBOR that were artificially low. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in U.S. dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. All cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2011, the District Court entered an Order appointing interim lead counsel for the two proposed classes: (i) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments directly from the defendants in the over-the-counter market, and (ii) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments on an exchange. In March 2012, the District Court also accepted the transfer of a related action which seeks to bring claims on behalf of a new proposed class: plaintiffs who purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based debt issued by Fortune 500 companies underwritten by the defendants. Madoff Litigation. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the “Trustee”) for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The Trustee has served an amended complaint in which he has asserted 28 causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 20 of which seek to avoid certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to have been preferential or fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The remaining causes of action involve claims for, among other things, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, contribution and unjust enrichment. The complaint generally alleges that JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff’s long-time bank, facilitated the maintenance of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and overlooked signs of wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and fees. The complaint asserts common law claims that purport to seek approximately $19 billion in damages, together with bankruptcy law claims to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from Bernard Madoff’s brokerage firm. By order dated October 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss the common law claims asserted by the Trustee, and returned the remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. The Trustee has appealed this decision. Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan (Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., Bear Stearns Alternative Assets International Ltd., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg SA, and Bear Stearns International Limited (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Markets Limited) have been named as defendants in lawsuits presently pending in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, “Fairfield”), so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions are based on theories of mistake and restitution and seek to recover payments made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $155 million. Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action against J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. without prejudice to refiling. The other actions remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has stayed these actions. In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. to an already-pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed. JPMorgan Chase is a defendant in five actions pending in New York state court and one purported class action in federal court in New York. The allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims against the Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The Firm has moved to dismiss both the state and federal actions. The Firm is also responding to various governmental inquiries concerning the Madoff matter. MF Global. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has been named as one of several defendants in a number of putative class action lawsuits brought by customers of MF Global in federal district courts in New York, Illinois and Montana. The actions allege, among other things, that the Firm aided and abetted MF Global’s alleged misuse of customer money and breaches of fiduciary duty and was unjustly enriched by the transfer of certain customer segregated funds by MF Global. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several defendants in a putative class action filed in federal District Court in New York on behalf of purchasers of MF Global’s publicly traded securities including the securities issued pursuant to MF Global’s February 2011 and August 2011 convertible note offerings. The complaint, which asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the underwriter defendants, alleges that the offering documents contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding MF Global’s financial position, including its exposure to European sovereign debt. A motion to transfer all of these putative class actions to a single forum for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings is currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The Firm continues to respond to requests for information and documents from the CFTC, SEC and SIPA Trustee in connection with their inquiries concerning MF Global. Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Regulatory Investigations. JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles as issuer, originator or underwriter in MBS offerings. These cases include purported class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of securities or by trustees for the benefit of purchasers of securities, and actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of securities offerings. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the offering documents for securities issued by dozens of securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including with regard to the underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that various representations or warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of origination. There are currently pending and tolled investor and monoline claims involving approximately $120 billion of such securities. In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and former employees, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. Defendants moved to dismiss these actions. In the first of these three actions, the court dismissed claims relating to all but one of the offerings. In the second action, the court dismissed claims as to certain offerings and tranches for lack of standing, but allowed claims to proceed relating to some offerings and certificates including ones raised by newly intervening plaintiffs; both parties have sought leave to appeal these rulings. In the third action, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, and defendants have sought to appeal certain aspects of the decision. In a fourth purported class action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain former officers or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as defendants. The court there denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to add JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a defendant on the theory that it is a successor to Washington Mutual Bank. In October 2011, the court certified a class of plaintiff investors to pursue the claims asserted, but limited those claims to the 13 tranches of MBS in which a named plaintiff purchased. Expert discovery is proceeding and defendants moved for summary judgment in April 2012. In addition to class actions, the Firm is also a defendant in individual actions brought against certain affiliates of JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as issuers (and, in some cases, as underwriters). These actions involve claims by or to benefit various institutional investors and governmental agencies. These actions are pending in federal and state courts across the United States and are at various stages of litigation. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly EMC Mortgage Corporation) (“EMC”), an indirect subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and certain other JPMorgan Chase entities currently are defendants in seven pending actions commenced by bond insurers that guaranteed payments of principal and interest on approximately $5 billion of certain classes of 21 different MBS offerings. These actions are pending in federal and state courts in New York and are in various stages of litigation. In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other issuers’ MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers. However, those indemnity rights may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct, such as in pending cases where the Firm has been named involving affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp and Thornburg Mortgage. The Firm may also be contractually obligated to indemnify underwriters in certain deals it issued. The Firm or its affiliates are defendants in actions brought by trustees of MBS on behalf of the purchasers of securities. In the first, Wells Fargo, as trustee for a single MBS trust, has filed an action against EMC Mortgage in Delaware state court alleging that EMC breached various representations and warranties and seeking the repurchase of more than 1,300 mortgage loans by EMC and indemnification for the trustee attorneys’ fees and costs. In the second, a trustee for a single MBS trust filed a summons with notice in New York state court against EMC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., seeking damages for breach of contract. The Firm has not yet been served with the complaint. In the third, the Firm is a defendant in an action commenced by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., acting as trustee for various MBS trusts. That case is described in more detail below with respect to the Washington Mutual Litigations. There is no assurance that the Firm will not be named as a defendant in additional MBS-related litigation, and the Firm has entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased such securities that toll applicable limitations periods with respect to their claims. In addition, the Firm has received several demands by securitization trustees that threaten litigation, as well as demands by investors directing or threatening to direct trustees to investigate claims or bring litigation, based on purported obligations to repurchase loans out of securitization trusts and alleged servicing deficiencies. These include but are not limited to a demand from a law firm, as counsel to a group of certificateholders who purport to have 25% or more of the voting rights in as many as 191 different trusts sponsored by the Firm with an original principal balance of more than $174 billion (excluding 52 trusts sponsored by Washington Mutual, with an original principal balance of more than $58 billion), made to various trustees to investigate potential repurchase and servicing claims. These also include repurchase and servicing claims made in litigation against trustees not affiliated with the Firm, but involving trusts the Firm sponsored. A shareholder complaint has been filed in New York state court against the Firm and two affiliates, members of the boards of directors thereof and certain employees, asserting claims based on alleged wrongful actions and inactions relating to residential mortgage originations and securitizations. The action seeks an accounting and damages. The defendants have moved to dismiss the action. In addition to the above-described litigation, the Firm has also received, and responded to, a number of subpoenas and informal requests for information from federal and state authorities concerning mortgage-related matters, including inquiries concerning a number of transactions involving the Firm’s origination and purchase of whole loans, underwriting and issuance of MBS, treatment of early payment defaults and potential breaches of securitization representations and warranties, reserves and due diligence in connection with securitizations. In January 2012, the Firm was advised by SEC staff that they are considering recommending to the Commission that civil or administrative actions be pursued arising out of two separate investigations they have been conducting. The first involves potential claims against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I relating to due diligence conducted for two mortgage-backed securitizations and corresponding disclosures. The second involves potential claims against Bear Stearns entities, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC relating to settlements of claims against originators involving loans included in a number of Bear Stearns securitizations. In both investigations, the Firm has submitted responses to the proposed actions. Mortgage Foreclosure Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase and four other firms agreed to a settlement (the “global settlement”) with a number of federal and state government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State Attorneys General, relating to the servicing and origination of mortgages. The global settlement, which was approved by the federal District Court for the District of Columbia effective April 5, 2012, calls for the Firm to, among other things: (i) make cash payments of approximately $1.1 billion (a portion of which will be set aside for payments to borrowers); (ii) provide approximately $500 million of refinancing relief to certain “underwater” borrowers whose loans are owned by the Firm; and (iii) provide approximately $3.7 billion of additional relief for certain borrowers, including reductions of principal on first and second liens, payments to assist with short sales, deficiency balance waivers on past foreclosures and short sales, and forbearance assistance for unemployed homeowners. If the Firm does not meet certain targets for provision of the refinancing or other borrower relief within certain prescribed time periods, the Firm will instead make cash payments. In addition, under the global settlement, the Firm is required to adhere to certain enhanced mortgage servicing standards. The global settlement releases the Firm from further state and federal claims, including: certain qui tam actions related to servicing activities, including foreclosures and loss mitigation activities; certain origination activities, including fees related to Veterans Administration Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loans; and certain bankruptcy-related activities. Not included in the global settlement are any claims arising out of securitization activities, including representations made to investors respecting mortgage-backed securities, criminal claims and repurchase demands from the GSEs, among other items. The New York Department of Financial Services was not a party to the settlement and did not release any claims. The Firm also entered into agreements with the Federal Reserve and the OCC for the payment of civil money penalties related to conduct that was the subject of consent orders entered into with the banking regulators in April 2011. The Firm’s payment obligations under those agreements will be deemed satisfied by the Firm’s payments and provisions of relief under the global settlement. The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New York have separately filed lawsuits against the Firm, other servicers and a mortgage recording company asserting claims for various alleged wrongdoings relating to mortgage assignments and use of the industry’s electronic mortgage registry. The Firm has moved to dismiss these actions. In addition, as part of the global settlement, the Department of Justice agreed to a full release of potential civil claims under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) with respect to the servicing of residential mortgages, in exchange for the Firm’s agreement to comply with certain protections for military personnel, as well as conducting a review of all completed foreclosures from 2006 to April 2012 to evaluate whether the completed foreclosures were in compliance with the SCRA and HERA. Five purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. Two of those suits were dismissed with prejudice. A third suit has been resolved, and its dismissal will be obtained shortly. Additionally, the purported class action brought against Bank of America involving an EMC loan has been dismissed. Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York state court against the Firm’s board of directors alleging that the board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing. These actions seek declaratory relief and damages. The defendants have moved to dismiss the first-filed action. Municipal Derivatives Investigations and Litigation. Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the reportedly $100 billion to $300 billion annual market for financial instruments related to municipal bond offerings referred to collectively as “municipal derivatives.” In July 2011, the Firm settled with federal and state governmental agencies to resolve their investigations into similar alleged conduct. The municipal derivatives actions have been consolidated and/or coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the purported class and individual actions, permitting certain claims to proceed against the Firm and others under federal and California state antitrust laws and under the California false claims act. Subsequently, a number of additional individual actions asserting substantially similar claims, including claims under New York and West Virginia state antitrust statutes, were filed against JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and numerous other defendants. These cases were also coordinated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Municipal Derivatives Actions”). In April 2012, JPMorgan and Bear Stearns reached an agreement to settle the Municipal Derivatives Actions for $45 million. The settlement is subject to court approval. In addition, civil actions have been commenced against the Firm relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions. In November 2009, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC settled with the SEC to resolve its investigation into those transactions. Following that settlement, the County and a putative class of sewer rate payers filed complaints against the Firm and several other defendants in Alabama state court. The suits allege that the Firm made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the County. The complaints also allege that the Firm concealed these third-party payments and that, but for this concealment, the County would not have entered into the transactions. The Court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss the complaints in both proceedings. The Firm filed mandamus petitions with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking immediate appellate review of these decisions. The mandamus petition in the County’s lawsuit was denied in April 2011. In November and December, 2011, the County filed notices of bankruptcy with the trial court in each of the cases and with the Alabama Supreme Court stating that it was a Chapter 9 Debtor in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama and providing notice of the automatic stay. Subsequently, the portion of the sewer rate payer action involving claims against the Firm was removed by certain defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In its order finding that removal of this action was proper, the District Court referred the action to the District’s Bankruptcy Court, where the action remains pending. Two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of principal and interest on warrants issued by the County have filed separate actions against the Firm in New York state court. Their complaints assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them into issuing insurance based upon substantially the same alleged conduct described above and other alleged non-disclosures. One insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2 billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million as well as unspecified punitive damages. The other insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378 million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified punitive damages. In December 2010, the court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss each of the complaints. The Firm has filed a cross-claim and a third party claim against the County for indemnity and contribution. The County moved to dismiss, which the court denied in August 2011. In consequence of its November 2011 bankruptcy filing, the County has asserted that these actions are stayed. Overdraft Fee/Debit Posting Order Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit card transactions to customers’ deposit accounts. Plaintiffs allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions from the highest amount to the lowest amount before processing these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees. Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such transactions in the chronological order they were authorized. Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions. The claims against the Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other national banks in multi-District litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Firm’s motion to compel arbitration of certain plaintiffs’ claims was initially denied by the District Court. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case addressing the enforcement of an arbitration provision in a consumer product agreement. The Firm has reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter in exchange for the Firm paying $110 million and agreeing to change certain overdraft fee practices. The settlement is subject to documentation and court approval. Petters Bankruptcy and Related Matters. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its affiliates, including One Equity Partners (“OEP”), have been named as defendants in several actions filed in connection with the receivership and bankruptcy proceedings pertaining to Thomas J. Petters and certain affiliated entities (collectively, “Petters”) and the Polaroid Corporation. The principal actions against JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates have been brought by a court-appointed receiver for Petters and the trustees in bankruptcy proceedings for three Petters entities. These actions generally seek to avoid, on fraudulent transfer and preference grounds, certain purported transfers in connection with (i) the 2005 acquisition by Petters of Polaroid, which at the time was majority-owned by OEP; (ii) two credit facilities that JPMorgan Chase and other financial institutions entered into with Polaroid; and (iii) a credit line and investment accounts held by Petters. The actions collectively seek recovery of approximately $450 million. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions filed by the Petters bankruptcy trustees and the parties have agreed to stay the action brought by the Receiver until after the Bankruptcy Court rules on the pending motions. Securities Lending Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions asserting ERISA and other claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by participants in the Firm’s securities lending business. A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual participant in the program. Three of the purported class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance Inc. (“Sigma”). In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all securities lending participants that held Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral through individual accounts. The Court granted JPMorgan Chase’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ duty of loyalty claim, finding that the Firm did not have a conflict of interest when it provided repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma medium-term notes in securities lending accounts. The parties reached an agreement to settle this action for $150 million. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2012. The fourth putative class action concerns investments of approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss all claims in April 2012, without leave to re-plead. The New York state court action, which is not a class action, concerns the plaintiff’s alleged loss of money in both Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Firm has answered the complaint. Discovery is proceeding. Washington Mutual Litigations. Subsequent to JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition from the FDIC of substantially all of the assets and certain specified liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank (“Washington Mutual Bank”) in September 2008, Washington Mutual Bank’s parent holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WMI Investment Corp. (together, the “Debtors”), both commenced voluntary cases under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Case”). In the Bankruptcy Case, the Debtors asserted rights and interests in certain assets. The assets in dispute included principally the following: (a) approximately $4 billion in trust securities contributed by WMI to Washington Mutual Bank (the “Trust Securities”); (b) the right to tax refunds arising from overpayments attributable to operations of Washington Mutual Bank and its subsidiaries; (c) ownership of and other rights in approximately $4 billion that WMI contends are deposit accounts at Washington Mutual Bank and one of its subsidiaries; and (d) ownership of and rights in various other contracts and other assets (collectively, the “Disputed Assets”). WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC were involved in litigations over these and other claims in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In May 2010, WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC announced a global settlement agreement among themselves and significant creditor groups (the “WaMu Global Settlement”). The WaMu Global Settlement is incorporated into WMI’s Chapter 11 plan (“the Plan”). The WaMu Global Settlement resolved numerous disputes among WMI, JPMorgan Chase, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank and the FDIC in its corporate capacity, as well as those of significant creditor groups, including disputes relating to the Disputed Assets. In February 2012 the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan, including the WaMu Global Settlement. The WaMu Global Settlement and Plan became effective in March 2012, resolving the litigation involving the Disputed Assets. The Bankruptcy Court also dealt with other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure. Among other actions, in July 2010, certain holders of the Trust Securities commenced an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court against JPMorgan Chase, WMI, and other entities seeking, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that WMI and JPMorgan Chase do not have any right, title or interest in the Trust Securities. In early January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to JPMorgan Chase and denied summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the Trust Securities adversary proceeding. The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The appeal was dismissed in March 2012 upon the effective date of the Plan, pursuant to a stipulated agreement. Other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure are pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and include a lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, initially against the FDIC, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breach of various mortgage securitization agreements and alleged violation of certain representations and warranties given by certain WMI subsidiaries in connection with those securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase may have assumed liabilities for the alleged breaches of representations and warranties in the mortgage securitization agreements. The District Court denied as premature motions by the Firm and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims. Discovery is underway. In addition, JPMorgan Chase was sued in an action originally filed in state court in Texas (the “Texas Action”) by certain holders of WMI common stock and debt of WMI and Washington Mutual Bank who seek unspecified damages alleging that JPMorgan Chase acquired substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC at a price that was allegedly too low. The Texas Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ultimately granted JPMorgan Chase’s and the FDIC’s motions to dismiss the complaint, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, who sue now only as holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt following their voluntary dismissal of claims brought as holders of WMI common stock and debt, have filed an amended complaint alleging that JPMorgan Chase caused the closure of Washington Mutual Bank and damaged them by causing their bonds issued by Washington Mutual Bank, which had a total face value of $38 million, to lose substantially all of their value. JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC have again moved to dismiss this action. * * * In addition to the various legal proceedings discussed above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or are otherwise involved in a substantial number of other legal proceedings. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future. The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. The Firm accrues for potential liability arising from such proceedings when it is probable that such liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Firm evaluates its outstanding legal proceedings each quarter to assess its litigation reserves, and makes adjustments in such reserves, upwards or downwards, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Firm incurred $2.7 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, of litigation expense. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what will be the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters, the timing of their ultimate resolution or the eventual losses, fines, penalties or impact related to those matters. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the legal proceedings currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s consolidated financial condition. The Firm notes, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, there is no assurance the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.

Litigation

Contingencies

As of March 31, 2012, the Firm and its subsidiaries are defendants or putative defendants in numerous legal proceedings, including private, civil litigations and regulatory/government investigations. The litigations range from individual actions involving a single plaintiff to class action lawsuits with potentially millions of class members. Investigations involve both formal and informal proceedings, by both governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations. These legal proceedings are at varying stages of adjudication, arbitration or investigation, and involve each of the Firm’s lines of business and geographies and a wide variety of claims (including common law tort and contract claims and statutory antitrust, securities and consumer protection claims), some of which present novel legal theories.

The Firm believes the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of reserves established, for its legal proceedings is from $0 to approximately $4.2 billion at March 31, 2012. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm is involved, taking into account the Firm’s best estimate of such losses for those cases for which such estimate can be made. For certain cases, the Firm does not believe that an estimate can currently be made. The Firm’s estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many are currently in preliminary stages), the existence in many such proceedings of multiple defendants (including the Firm) whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous yet-unresolved issues in many of the proceedings (including issues regarding class certification and the scope of many of the claims) and the attendant uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such proceedings. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may be more than the current estimate.

Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings.

Auction-Rate Securities Investigations and Litigation. Beginning in March 2008, several regulatory authorities initiated investigations of a number of industry participants, including the Firm, concerning possible state and federal securities law violations in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities (“ARS”). The market for many such securities had frozen and a significant number of auctions for those securities began to fail in February 2008.

The Firm, on behalf of itself and affiliates, agreed to a settlement in principle with the New York Attorney General’s Office which provided, among other things, that the Firm would offer to purchase at par certain ARS purchased from J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Chase Investment Services Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. by individual investors, charities and small- to medium-sized businesses. The Firm also agreed to a substantively similar settlement in principle with the Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida and the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) Task Force, which agreed to recommend approval of the settlement to all remaining states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Firm has finalized the settlement agreements with the New York Attorney General’s Office and the Office of Financial Regulation for the State of Florida. The settlement agreements provide for the payment of penalties totaling $25 million to all states. The Firm is currently in the process of finalizing consent agreements with NASAA’s member states; more than 45 of these consent agreements have been finalized to date.

The Firm also faces a number of civil actions before courts and arbitration panels relating to the Firm’s sales of ARS. The actions generally allege that the Firm and other firms manipulated the market for ARS by placing bids at auctions that affected these securities’ clearing rates or otherwise supported the auctions without properly disclosing these activities. The Firm’s motion to dismiss a putative class action that had been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ARS was granted in March 2012.

Additionally, the Firm was named in two putative antitrust class actions. The actions allege that the Firm, along with numerous other financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and stabilize the ARS market and then to withdraw their support for the ARS market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both actions. An appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Bear Stearns Hedge Fund Matters. The Bear Stearns Companies LLC (formerly The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.) (“Bear Stearns”), certain current or former subsidiaries of Bear Stearns, including Bear Stearns Asset Management, Inc. (“BSAM”) and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and certain individuals formerly employed by Bear Stearns are named defendants (collectively the “Bear Stearns defendants”) in multiple civil actions and arbitrations relating to alleged losses resulting from the failure of the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd. (the “High Grade Fund”) and the Bear Stearns High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund, Ltd. (the “Enhanced Leverage Fund”) (collectively the “Funds”). BSAM served as investment manager for both of the Funds, which were organized such that there were U.S. and Cayman Islands “feeder funds” that invested substantially all their assets, directly or indirectly, in the Funds. The Funds are in liquidation.

There are currently three civil actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Funds. One of these actions involves a derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the U.S. feeder fund to the Enhanced Leverage Fund, alleging that the Bear Stearns defendants mismanaged the Funds. This action seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages based on alleged investor losses. The parties have reached an agreement to settle this derivative action, pursuant to which BSAM would pay a maximum of approximately $18 million. In April 2012, the Court granted final approval of this settlement. (A separate derivative action, also alleging that the Bear Stearns defendants mismanaged the Funds, was brought on behalf of purchasers of partnership interests in the U.S. feeder fund to the High Grade Fund, and was dismissed following a Court-approved settlement with similar terms, pursuant to which BSAM paid approximately $19 million). The second pending action, brought by the Joint Voluntary Liquidators of the Cayman Islands feeder funds, makes allegations similar to those asserted in the derivative lawsuits related to the U.S. feeder funds, alleges net losses of approximately $700 million and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The parties presently are engaged in discovery.

The third action was brought by Bank of America and Banc of America Securities LLC (together “BofA”) alleging breach of contract and fraud in connection with a $4 billion securitization in May 2007 known as a “CDO-squared,” for which BSAM served as collateral manager. This securitization was composed of certain collateralized debt obligation holdings that were purchased by BofA from the Funds. BofA currently seeks damages up to approximately $535 million. Discovery has concluded. BofA recently filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to reinstate and amend a previously dismissed claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

Bear Stearns Shareholder Litigation and Related Matters. Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the “Class Period”). During the Class Period, Bear Stearns had between 115 million and 120 million common shares outstanding, and the price per share of those securities declined from a high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period. The actions, originally commenced in several federal courts, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns’ business and financial results and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns’ common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In addition, several individual shareholders of Bear Stearns have also commenced or threatened to commence their own arbitration proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the putative class actions. Certain of these matters have been dismissed or settled.

Separately, an agreement in principle has been reached to resolve a class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or directors on behalf of participants in the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the management of that Plan. Under the settlement, which remains subject to final documentation and court approval, the class will receive $10 million.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns’ Board of Directors and certain of Bear Stearns’ former executive officers have also been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class action suit which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of control and indemnification and contribution in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock. Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The District Court dismissed the action, and plaintiffs have appealed.

City of Milan Litigation and Criminal Investigation. In January 2009, the City of Milan, Italy (the “City”) issued civil proceedings against (among others) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (together, “JPMorgan Chase”) in the District Court of Milan. The proceedings relate to (a) a bond issue by the City in June 2005 (the “Bond”), and (b) an associated swap transaction, which was subsequently restructured on a number of occasions between 2005 and 2007 (the “Swap”). The City seeks damages and/or other remedies against JPMorgan Chase (among others) on the grounds of alleged “fraudulent and deceitful acts” and alleged breach of advisory obligations in connection with the Swap and the Bond, together with related swap transactions with other counterparties. The Firm has entered into a settlement agreement with the City to resolve the City’s civil proceedings, in consequence of which the City will no longer be a party to the criminal proceedings discussed below.

In March 2010, a criminal judge directed four current and former JPMorgan Chase personnel and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (as well as other individuals and three other banks) to go forward to a full trial that started in May 2010. Although the Firm is not charged with any crime and does not face criminal liability, if one or more of its employees were found guilty, the Firm could be subject to administrative sanctions, including restrictions on its ability to conduct business in Italy and monetary penalties. Hearings have continued on a weekly basis since May 2010.

Enron Litigation. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its officers and directors are involved in several lawsuits seeking damages arising out of the Firm’s banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its subsidiaries (“Enron”). A number of actions and other proceedings against the Firm previously were resolved, including a class action lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings brought by Enron’s bankruptcy estate. The remaining Enron-related actions include an individual action by an Enron investor, an action by an Enron counterparty and a purported class action filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm’s 401(k) plan asserting claims under ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers. The class action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Motions to dismiss are pending in the other two actions.

FERC Investigation. JPMorgan Chase’s commodities business owns or has the right to output from several electricity generating facilities. The Firm is responding to requests for information in connection with an investigation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding bidding practices by this business in certain organized power markets.

Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action complaints in several federal courts. The complaints allege that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that interchange fees would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged conduct. All cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings. The Court has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January 2004. The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the remainder of the case or plaintiffs’ class certification motion. Fact and expert discovery have closed.

In addition to the consolidated class action complaint, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints challenging the initial public offerings (“IPOs”) of MasterCard and Visa (the “IPO Complaints”). With respect to the MasterCard IPO, plaintiffs allege that the offering violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering was a fraudulent conveyance. With respect to the Visa IPO, plaintiffs are challenging the Visa IPO on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the MasterCard IPO pleading. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the IPO Complaints. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.

The parties also have filed motions seeking summary judgment as to various claims in the complaints. Oral argument on these summary judgment motions was heard in November 2011.

The Firm and the other defendants remain actively involved in settlement discussions under the supervision of the court.

Investment Management Litigation. Four cases have been filed claiming that investment portfolios managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. (“JPMorgan Investment Management”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by subprime residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs claim that JPMorgan Investment Management and related defendants are liable for losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. The first case was filed by NM Homes One, Inc. in federal District Court in New York. Following rulings on motions addressed to the pleadings, plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and gross negligence survive, and discovery is proceeding. In the second case, filed by Assured Guaranty (U.K.) in New York state court, discovery is proceeding on plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence. In the third case, filed by Ambac Assurance UK Limited in New York state court, the lower court granted JPMorgan Investment Management’s motion to dismiss. The New York State Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s decision and discovery is proceeding. The fourth case, filed by CMMF LLP in New York state court, asserts claims under New York law for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The lower court denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss and discovery is proceeding.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. In May 2010, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) filed a complaint (and later an amended complaint) against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and seeks, among other relief, to recover $8.6 billion in collateral that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also seeks unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s demise. In February 2012, JPMorgan Asset Management and Highbridge Capital Management reached a settlement with LBHI and the Committee, which had the result of returning to LBHI $700 million of the $8.6 billion of collateral sought by the amended complaint. The Firm moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in its entirety, and also moved to transfer the litigation from the Bankruptcy Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court directed the Bankruptcy Court to decide the motion to dismiss while the District Court is considering the transfer motion. In April 2012, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the counts of the amended complaint seeking avoidance of the allegedly constructively fraudulent and preferential transfers made to the Firm during the months of August and September 2008. The Court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss as to the other claims, including claims that allege intentional misconduct. The District Court has not yet ruled on the transfer motion.

The Firm also filed counterclaims against LBHI alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large clearing advances to Lehman against inappropriate collateral, which left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims (the “Clearing Claims”) against the estate of Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. These claims have been paid in full, subject to the outcome of the litigation. Discovery is underway, with any trial unlikely to begin before 2013. In August 2011, LBHI and the Committee filed an objection to the deficiency claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to the Clearing Claims, principally on the grounds that the Firm had not conducted the sale of the securities collateral held for such claims in a commercially reasonable manner.

On April 4, 2012, the Firm entered into a settlement with the CFTC to resolve the CFTC’s Lehman-related investigation of the Firm, and pursuant to which the Firm paid $20 million.

LIBOR Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase has received various subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from the United States Department of Justice, United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, European Commission, United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, Canadian Competition Bureau and Swiss Competition Commission. The documents and information sought all relate to the process by which rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association (“BBA”) in connection with the setting of the BBA’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), principally in 2007 and 2008. The inquiries from some of the regulators also relate to similar processes by which EURIBOR rates are submitted to the European Banking Federation and TIBOR rates are submitted to the Japanese Bankers’ Association during similar time periods. The Firm is cooperating with these inquiries.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in various U.S. federal courts alleging that since 2006 the defendants either individually suppressed the LIBOR rate artificially or colluded in submitting rates for LIBOR that were artificially low. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in U.S. dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. All cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2011, the District Court entered an Order appointing interim lead counsel for the two proposed classes: (i) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments directly from the defendants in the over-the-counter market, and (ii) plaintiffs who allegedly purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments on an exchange. In March 2012, the District Court also accepted the transfer of a related action which seeks to bring claims on behalf of a new proposed class: plaintiffs who purchased U.S. dollar LIBOR-based debt issued by Fortune 500 companies underwritten by the defendants.

Madoff Litigation. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. have been named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the “Trustee”) for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”). The Trustee has served an amended complaint in which he has asserted 28 causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 20 of which seek to avoid certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to have been preferential or fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The remaining causes of action involve claims for, among other things, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, contribution and unjust enrichment. The complaint generally alleges that JPMorgan Chase, as Madoff’s long-time bank, facilitated the maintenance of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and overlooked signs of wrongdoing in order to obtain profits and fees. The complaint asserts common law claims that purport to seek approximately $19 billion in damages, together with bankruptcy law claims to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from Bernard Madoff’s brokerage firm. By order dated October 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss the common law claims asserted by the Trustee, and returned the remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings. The Trustee has appealed this decision.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan (Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., Bear Stearns Alternative Assets International Ltd., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., J.P. Morgan Bank Luxembourg SA, and Bear Stearns International Limited (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Markets Limited) have been named as defendants in lawsuits presently pending in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, “Fairfield”), so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions are based on theories of mistake and restitution and seek to recover payments made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $155 million. Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action against J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. without prejudice to refiling. The other actions remain outstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has stayed these actions. In addition, a purported class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. to an already-pending purported class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court dismissed these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed.

JPMorgan Chase is a defendant in five actions pending in New York state court and one purported class action in federal court in New York. The allegations in all of these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims against the Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The Firm has moved to dismiss both the state and federal actions.

The Firm is also responding to various governmental inquiries concerning the Madoff matter.

MF Global. JPMorgan Chase & Co. has been named as one of several defendants in a number of putative class action lawsuits brought by customers of MF Global in federal district courts in New York, Illinois and Montana. The actions allege, among other things, that the Firm aided and abetted MF Global’s alleged misuse of customer money and breaches of fiduciary duty and was unjustly enriched by the transfer of certain customer segregated funds by MF Global.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several defendants in a putative class action filed in federal District Court in New York on behalf of purchasers of MF Global’s publicly traded securities including the securities issued pursuant to MF Global’s February 2011 and August 2011 convertible note offerings. The complaint, which asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the underwriter defendants, alleges that the offering documents contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding MF Global’s financial position, including its exposure to European sovereign debt.

A motion to transfer all of these putative class actions to a single forum for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings is currently pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The Firm continues to respond to requests for information and documents from the CFTC, SEC and SIPA Trustee in connection with their inquiries concerning MF Global.

Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Regulatory Investigations. JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles as issuer, originator or underwriter in MBS offerings. These cases include purported class action suits, actions by individual purchasers of securities or by trustees for the benefit of purchasers of securities, and actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of securities offerings. Although the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the offering documents for securities issued by dozens of securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and omissions, including with regard to the underwriting standards pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or assert that various representations or warranties relating to the loans were breached at the time of origination. There are currently pending and tolled investor and monoline claims involving approximately $120 billion of such securities.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and former employees, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. Defendants moved to dismiss these actions. In the first of these three actions, the court dismissed claims relating to all but one of the offerings. In the second action, the court dismissed claims as to certain offerings and tranches for lack of standing, but allowed claims to proceed relating to some offerings and certificates including ones raised by newly intervening plaintiffs; both parties have sought leave to appeal these rulings. In the third action, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, and defendants have sought to appeal certain aspects of the decision. In a fourth purported class action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., along with certain former officers or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., have been named as defendants. The court there denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint to add JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as a defendant on the theory that it is a successor to Washington Mutual Bank. In October 2011, the court certified a class of plaintiff investors to pursue the claims asserted, but limited those claims to the 13 tranches of MBS in which a named plaintiff purchased. Expert discovery is proceeding and defendants moved for summary judgment in April 2012.

In addition to class actions, the Firm is also a defendant in individual actions brought against certain affiliates of JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as issuers (and, in some cases, as underwriters). These actions involve claims by or to benefit various institutional investors and governmental agencies. These actions are pending in federal and state courts across the United States and are at various stages of litigation.

EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly EMC Mortgage Corporation) (“EMC”), an indirect subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and certain other JPMorgan Chase entities currently are defendants in seven pending actions commenced by bond insurers that guaranteed payments of principal and interest on approximately $5 billion of certain classes of 21 different MBS offerings. These actions are pending in federal and state courts in New York and are in various stages of litigation.

In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other issuers’ MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers. However, those indemnity rights may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now defunct, such as in pending cases where the Firm has been named involving affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp and Thornburg Mortgage. The Firm may also be contractually obligated to indemnify underwriters in certain deals it issued.

The Firm or its affiliates are defendants in actions brought by trustees of MBS on behalf of the purchasers of securities. In the first, Wells Fargo, as trustee for a single MBS trust, has filed an action against EMC Mortgage in Delaware state court alleging that EMC breached various representations and warranties and seeking the repurchase of more than 1,300 mortgage loans by EMC and indemnification for the trustee attorneys’ fees and costs. In the second, a trustee for a single MBS trust filed a summons with notice in New York state court against EMC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., seeking damages for breach of contract. The Firm has not yet been served with the complaint. In the third, the Firm is a defendant in an action commenced by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., acting as trustee for various MBS trusts. That case is described in more detail below with respect to the Washington Mutual Litigations.

There is no assurance that the Firm will not be named as a defendant in additional MBS-related litigation, and the Firm has entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased such securities that toll applicable limitations periods with respect to their claims. In addition, the Firm has received several demands by securitization trustees that threaten litigation, as well as demands by investors directing or threatening to direct trustees to investigate claims or bring litigation, based on purported obligations to repurchase loans out of securitization trusts and alleged servicing deficiencies. These include but are not limited to a demand from a law firm, as counsel to a group of certificateholders who purport to have 25% or more of the voting rights in as many as 191 different trusts sponsored by the Firm with an original principal balance of more than $174 billion (excluding 52 trusts sponsored by Washington Mutual, with an original principal balance of more than $58 billion), made to various trustees to investigate potential repurchase and servicing claims. These also include repurchase and servicing claims made in litigation against trustees not affiliated with the Firm, but involving trusts the Firm sponsored.

A shareholder complaint has been filed in New York state court against the Firm and two affiliates, members of the boards of directors thereof and certain employees, asserting claims based on alleged wrongful actions and inactions relating to residential mortgage originations and securitizations. The action seeks an accounting and damages. The defendants have moved to dismiss the action.

In addition to the above-described litigation, the Firm has also received, and responded to, a number of subpoenas and informal requests for information from federal and state authorities concerning mortgage-related matters, including inquiries concerning a number of transactions involving the Firm’s origination and purchase of whole loans, underwriting and issuance of MBS, treatment of early payment defaults and potential breaches of securitization representations and warranties, reserves and due diligence in connection with securitizations. In January 2012, the Firm was advised by SEC staff that they are considering recommending to the Commission that civil or administrative actions be pursued arising out of two separate investigations they have been conducting. The first involves potential claims against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I relating to due diligence conducted for two mortgage-backed securitizations and corresponding disclosures. The second involves potential claims against Bear Stearns entities, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC relating to settlements of claims against originators involving loans included in a number of Bear Stearns securitizations. In both investigations, the Firm has submitted responses to the proposed actions.

Mortgage Foreclosure Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase and four other firms agreed to a settlement (the “global settlement”) with a number of federal and state government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the State Attorneys General, relating to the servicing and origination of mortgages. The global settlement, which was approved by the federal District Court for the District of Columbia effective April 5, 2012, calls for the Firm to, among other things: (i) make cash payments of approximately $1.1 billion (a portion of which will be set aside for payments to borrowers); (ii) provide approximately $500 million of refinancing relief to certain “underwater” borrowers whose loans are owned by the Firm; and (iii) provide approximately $3.7 billion of additional relief for certain borrowers, including reductions of principal on first and second liens, payments to assist with short sales, deficiency balance waivers on past foreclosures and short sales, and forbearance assistance for unemployed homeowners. If the Firm does not meet certain targets for provision of the refinancing or other borrower relief within certain prescribed time periods, the Firm will instead make cash payments. In addition, under the global settlement, the Firm is required to adhere to certain enhanced mortgage servicing standards.

The global settlement releases the Firm from further state and federal claims, including: certain qui tam actions related to servicing activities, including foreclosures and loss mitigation activities; certain origination activities, including fees related to Veterans Administration Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loans; and certain bankruptcy-related activities. Not included in the global settlement are any claims arising out of securitization activities, including representations made to investors respecting mortgage-backed securities, criminal claims and repurchase demands from the GSEs, among other items. The New York Department of Financial Services was not a party to the settlement and did not release any claims.

The Firm also entered into agreements with the Federal Reserve and the OCC for the payment of civil money penalties related to conduct that was the subject of consent orders entered into with the banking regulators in April 2011. The Firm’s payment obligations under those agreements will be deemed satisfied by the Firm’s payments and provisions of relief under the global settlement.

The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New York have separately filed lawsuits against the Firm, other servicers and a mortgage recording company asserting claims for various alleged wrongdoings relating to mortgage assignments and use of the industry’s electronic mortgage registry. The Firm has moved to dismiss these actions.

In addition, as part of the global settlement, the Department of Justice agreed to a full release of potential civil claims under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”) with respect to the servicing of residential mortgages, in exchange for the Firm’s agreement to comply with certain protections for military personnel, as well as conducting a review of all completed foreclosures from 2006 to April 2012 to evaluate whether the completed foreclosures were in compliance with the SCRA and HERA.

Five purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Firm relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. Two of those suits were dismissed with prejudice. A third suit has been resolved, and its dismissal will be obtained shortly. Additionally, the purported class action brought against Bank of America involving an EMC loan has been dismissed.

Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York state court against the Firm’s board of directors alleging that the board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing. These actions seek declaratory relief and damages. The defendants have moved to dismiss the first-filed action.

Municipal Derivatives Investigations and Litigation. Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the reportedly $100 billion to $300 billion annual market for financial instruments related to municipal bond offerings referred to collectively as “municipal derivatives.” In July 2011, the Firm settled with federal and state governmental agencies to resolve their investigations into similar alleged conduct. The municipal derivatives actions have been consolidated and/or coordinated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motions to dismiss the purported class and individual actions, permitting certain claims to proceed against the Firm and others under federal and California state antitrust laws and under the California false claims act. Subsequently, a number of additional individual actions asserting substantially similar claims, including claims under New York and West Virginia state antitrust statutes, were filed against JPMorgan Chase, Bear Stearns and numerous other defendants. These cases were also coordinated for pretrial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Municipal Derivatives Actions”). In April 2012, JPMorgan and Bear Stearns reached an agreement to settle the Municipal Derivatives Actions for $45 million. The settlement is subject to court approval.

In addition, civil actions have been commenced against the Firm relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions. In November 2009, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC settled with the SEC to resolve its investigation into those transactions. Following that settlement, the County and a putative class of sewer rate payers filed complaints against the Firm and several other defendants in Alabama state court. The suits allege that the Firm made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the County. The complaints also allege that the Firm concealed these third-party payments and that, but for this concealment, the County would not have entered into the transactions. The Court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss the complaints in both proceedings. The Firm filed mandamus petitions with the Alabama Supreme Court, seeking immediate appellate review of these decisions. The mandamus petition in the County’s lawsuit was denied in April 2011. In November and December, 2011, the County filed notices of bankruptcy with the trial court in each of the cases and with the Alabama Supreme Court stating that it was a Chapter 9 Debtor in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama and providing notice of the automatic stay. Subsequently, the portion of the sewer rate payer action involving claims against the Firm was removed by certain defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In its order finding that removal of this action was proper, the District Court referred the action to the District’s Bankruptcy Court, where the action remains pending.

Two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of principal and interest on warrants issued by the County have filed separate actions against the Firm in New York state court. Their complaints assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them into issuing insurance based upon substantially the same alleged conduct described above and other alleged non-disclosures. One insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2 billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million as well as unspecified punitive damages. The other insurer claims that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378 million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified punitive damages. In December 2010, the court denied the Firm’s motions to dismiss each of the complaints. The Firm has filed a cross-claim and a third party claim against the County for indemnity and contribution. The County moved to dismiss, which the court denied in August 2011. In consequence of its November 2011 bankruptcy filing, the County has asserted that these actions are stayed.

Overdraft Fee/Debit Posting Order Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit card transactions to customers’ deposit accounts. Plaintiffs allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions from the highest amount to the lowest amount before processing these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft fees. Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such transactions in the chronological order they were authorized. Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees paid to the Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions. The claims against the Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints against other national banks in multi-District litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Firm’s motion to compel arbitration of certain plaintiffs’ claims was initially denied by the District Court. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the District Court’s order and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case addressing the enforcement of an arbitration provision in a consumer product agreement. The Firm has reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter in exchange for the Firm paying $110 million and agreeing to change certain overdraft fee practices. The settlement is subject to documentation and court approval.

Petters Bankruptcy and Related Matters. JPMorgan Chase and certain of its affiliates, including One Equity Partners (“OEP”), have been named as defendants in several actions filed in connection with the receivership and bankruptcy proceedings pertaining to Thomas J. Petters and certain affiliated entities (collectively, “Petters”) and the Polaroid Corporation. The principal actions against JPMorgan Chase and its affiliates have been brought by a court-appointed receiver for Petters and the trustees in bankruptcy proceedings for three Petters entities. These actions generally seek to avoid, on fraudulent transfer and preference grounds, certain purported transfers in connection with (i) the 2005 acquisition by Petters of Polaroid, which at the time was majority-owned by OEP; (ii) two credit facilities that JPMorgan Chase and other financial institutions entered into with Polaroid; and (iii) a credit line and investment accounts held by Petters. The actions collectively seek recovery of approximately $450 million. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions filed by the Petters bankruptcy trustees and the parties have agreed to stay the action brought by the Receiver until after the Bankruptcy Court rules on the pending motions.

Securities Lending Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions asserting ERISA and other claims pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought by participants in the Firm’s securities lending business. A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York state court by an individual participant in the program. Three of the purported class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma Finance Inc. (“Sigma”). In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all securities lending participants that held Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral through individual accounts. The Court granted JPMorgan Chase’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ duty of loyalty claim, finding that the Firm did not have a conflict of interest when it provided repurchase financing to Sigma while also holding Sigma medium-term notes in securities lending accounts. The parties reached an agreement to settle this action for $150 million. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 2012.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss all claims in April 2012, without leave to re-plead. The New York state court action, which is not a class action, concerns the plaintiff’s alleged loss of money in both Sigma and Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Firm has answered the complaint. Discovery is proceeding.

Washington Mutual Litigations. Subsequent to JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition from the FDIC of substantially all of the assets and certain specified liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank (“Washington Mutual Bank”) in September 2008, Washington Mutual Bank’s parent holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. (“WMI”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, WMI Investment Corp. (together, the “Debtors”), both commenced voluntary cases under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Case”). In the Bankruptcy Case, the Debtors asserted rights and interests in certain assets. The assets in dispute included principally the following: (a) approximately $4 billion in trust securities contributed by WMI to Washington Mutual Bank (the “Trust Securities”); (b) the right to tax refunds arising from overpayments attributable to operations of Washington Mutual Bank and its subsidiaries; (c) ownership of and other rights in approximately $4 billion that WMI contends are deposit accounts at Washington Mutual Bank and one of its subsidiaries; and (d) ownership of and rights in various other contracts and other assets (collectively, the “Disputed Assets”).

WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC were involved in litigations over these and other claims in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

In May 2010, WMI, JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC announced a global settlement agreement among themselves and significant creditor groups (the “WaMu Global Settlement”). The WaMu Global Settlement is incorporated into WMI’s Chapter 11 plan (“the Plan”). The WaMu Global Settlement resolved numerous disputes among WMI, JPMorgan Chase, the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank and the FDIC in its corporate capacity, as well as those of significant creditor groups, including disputes relating to the Disputed Assets. In February 2012 the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan, including the WaMu Global Settlement. The WaMu Global Settlement and Plan became effective in March 2012, resolving the litigation involving the Disputed Assets.

The Bankruptcy Court also dealt with other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure. Among other actions, in July 2010, certain holders of the Trust Securities commenced an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court against JPMorgan Chase, WMI, and other entities seeking, among other relief, a declaratory judgment that WMI and JPMorgan Chase do not have any right, title or interest in the Trust Securities. In early January 2011, the Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment to JPMorgan Chase and denied summary judgment to the plaintiffs in the Trust Securities adversary proceeding. The plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The appeal was dismissed in March 2012 upon the effective date of the Plan, pursuant to a stipulated agreement.

Other proceedings related to Washington Mutual’s failure are pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and include a lawsuit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, initially against the FDIC, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breach of various mortgage securitization agreements and alleged violation of certain representations and warranties given by certain WMI subsidiaries in connection with those securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase may have assumed liabilities for the alleged breaches of representations and warranties in the mortgage securitization agreements. The District Court denied as premature motions by the Firm and the FDIC that sought a ruling on whether the FDIC retained liability for Deutsche Bank’s claims. Discovery is underway.

In addition, JPMorgan Chase was sued in an action originally filed in state court in Texas (the “Texas Action”) by certain holders of WMI common stock and debt of WMI and Washington Mutual Bank who seek unspecified damages alleging that JPMorgan Chase acquired substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC at a price that was allegedly too low. The Texas Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which ultimately granted JPMorgan Chase’s and the FDIC’s motions to dismiss the complaint, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Plaintiffs, who sue now only as holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt following their voluntary dismissal of claims brought as holders of WMI common stock and debt, have filed an amended complaint alleging that JPMorgan Chase caused the closure of Washington Mutual Bank and damaged them by causing their bonds issued by Washington Mutual Bank, which had a total face value of $38 million, to lose substantially all of their value. JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC have again moved to dismiss this action.

* * *

In addition to the various legal proceedings discussed above, JPMorgan Chase and its subsidiaries are named as defendants or are otherwise involved in a substantial number of other legal proceedings. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings may be initiated from time to time in the future.

The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. The Firm accrues for potential liability arising from such proceedings when it is probable that such liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Firm evaluates its outstanding legal proceedings each quarter to assess its litigation reserves, and makes adjustments in such reserves, upwards or downwards, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Firm incurred $2.7 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively, of litigation expense. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages, or where the matters present novel legal theories, involve a large number of parties or are in early stages of discovery, the Firm cannot state with confidence what will be the eventual outcomes of the currently pending matters, the timing of their ultimate resolution or the eventual losses, fines, penalties or impact related to those matters. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge, after consultation with counsel and after taking into account its current litigation reserves, that the legal proceedings currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s consolidated financial condition. The Firm notes, however, that in light of the uncertainties involved in such proceedings, there is no assurance the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to JPMorgan Chase’s operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of JPMorgan Chase’s income for that period.