Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Contingencies As of December 31, 2015, the Firm and its subsidiaries and affiliates 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 $3.6 billion at December 31, 2015. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm believes that an estimate of reasonably possible loss can be made. For certain matters, the Firm does not believe that such an estimate can be made. The Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses involves significant judgment, given the number, variety and varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many are 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, particularly proceedings that could result from government investigations. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly. Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings. Auto Dealer Regulatory Matter. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is investigating potential statistical disparities in markups charged to borrowers of different races and ethnicities by automobile dealers on loans originated by those dealers and purchased by the Firm. CIO Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action, a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and seven shareholder derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm will pay $150 million, has been preliminarily approved by the court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed, and plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. Six of the seven shareholder derivative actions have been dismissed. Credit Default Swaps Investigations and Litigation. In July 2013, the European Commission (the “EC”) filed a Statement of Objections against the Firm (including various subsidiaries) and other industry members in connection with its ongoing investigation into the credit default swaps (“CDS”) marketplace. The EC asserted that between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment banks acted collectively through the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) and Markit Group Limited (“Markit”) to foreclose exchanges from the potential market for exchange-traded credit derivatives. In December 2015, the EC announced the closure of its investigation as to the Firm and other investment banks. Separately, the Firm and other defendants have entered separate agreements to settle a consolidated putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS. The complaint in this action had alleged that the defendant investment banks and dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new entrants into the market for exchange-traded CDS products. These settlements are subject to Court approval. Custody Assets Investigation. The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has closed its previously-reported investigation concerning compliance by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London branch and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited with the FCA’s rules regarding the provision of custody services relating to the administration of client assets. Foreign Exchange Investigations and Litigation. The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government authorities relating to its foreign exchange (“FX”) sales and trading activities and controls related to those activities. FX-related investigations and inquiries by other, non-U.S. government authorities, including competition authorities, remain ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with those matters. The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the “U.S. class action”). In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the “exchanged-based actions”), consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the “consumer actions”), and participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the “ERISA actions”). In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the U.S. class action filed an amended complaint, and the Court consolidated the exchange-based actions into the U.S. class action. The Firm has entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based actions, and that agreement is subject to Court approval. The consumer actions and ERISA actions remain pending. In September 2015, two class actions were filed in Canada against the Firm as well as a number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument. The second action seeks to represent only those persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions. General Motors Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. participated in, and was the Administrative Agent on behalf of a syndicate of lenders on, a $1.5 billion syndicated Term Loan facility (“Term Loan”) for General Motors Corporation (“GM”). In July 2009, in connection with the GM bankruptcy proceedings, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company (“Creditors Committee”) filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in its individual capacity and as Administrative Agent for other lenders on the Term Loan, seeking to hold the underlying lien invalid based on the filing of a UCC-3 termination statement relating to the Term Loan. In March 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Creditors Committee’s complaint on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not authorize the filing of the UCC-3 termination statement at issue. The Creditors Committee appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of its claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In January 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the Creditors Committee’s claim and remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court with instructions to enter partial summary judgment for the Creditors Committee as to the termination statement. The proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court continue with respect to, among other things, additional defenses asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the value of additional collateral on the Term Loan that was unaffected by the filing of the termination statement at issue. In addition, certain Term Loan lenders filed cross-claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Bankruptcy Court seeking indemnification and asserting various claims. Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain 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 parties have entered into an agreement to settle the cases for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which the Firm’s share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for modifications to each credit card network’s rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants appealed, and oral argument was held in September 2015. Certain merchants and trade associations have also filed a motion with the District Court seeking to set aside the approval of the class settlement on the basis of alleged improper communications between one of MasterCard’s former outside counsel and one of plaintiffs’ outside counsel. That motion remains pending. Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks. Defendants’ motion to dismiss those actions was denied in July 2014. Investment Management Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending cases that are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes, alleging that investment portfolios managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management (“JPMIM”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs Assured Guaranty (U.K.) and Ambac Assurance UK Limited claim that JPMIM is liable for total losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. Discovery has been completed. In January 2016, plaintiffs filed a joint partial motion for summary judgment in the coordinated actions. 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 asserted both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and sought, among other relief, to recover $7.9 billion in collateral (after deducting $700 million of returned collateral) that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also sought unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the claims in the amended complaint that sought to void the allegedly constructively fraudulent and preferential transfers made to the Firm during September 2008, but did not dismiss the other claims, including claims for duress and fraud. The Firm filed counterclaims against LBHI, including alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large extensions of credit against inappropriate collateral in connection with the Firm’s role as the clearing bank for Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. These extensions of credit left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims against the estate of LBI, which was repaid principally through collateral posted by LBHI and LBI. In September 2015, the District Court, to which the case had been transferred from the Bankruptcy Court, granted summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on most of the claims against it that the Bankruptcy Court had not previously dismissed, including the claims for duress and fraud. The District Court also denied LBHI’s motion for summary judgment on certain of its claims and for dismissal of the Firm’s counterclaims. The claims that remained following the District Court’s ruling challenged the propriety of the Firm’s post-petition payment, from collateral posted by LBHI, of approximately $1.9 billion of derivatives, repo and securities lending claims. In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and several of its subsidiaries that had been Chapter 11 debtors had filed a separate complaint and objection to derivatives claims asserted by the Firm alleging that the amount of the derivatives claims had been overstated and challenging certain set-offs taken by JPMorgan Chase entities to recover on the claims. In January 2015, LBHI filed claims objections with respect to guaranty claims asserted by the Firm arising from close-outs of derivatives transactions with LBI and one of its affiliates, and a claim objection with respect to derivatives close-out claims acquired by the Firm in the Washington Mutual transaction. In January 2016, the parties reached an agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, under which the Firm will pay $1.42 billion to settle all of the claims, counterclaims and claims objections, including all appeal rights, except for the claims specified in the following paragraph. One pro se objector is seeking to appeal the settlement. The settlement did not resolve the following remaining matters: In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and the Committee filed an objection to the claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to clearing advances made to LBI, principally on the grounds that the Firm had not conducted the sale of the securities collateral held for its claims in a commercially reasonable manner. In January 2015, LBHI brought two claims objections relating to securities lending claims and a group of other smaller claims. Discovery with respect to these objections is ongoing. LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies and entities, including the DOJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and various state attorneys general, as well as the EC, the FCA, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and banking associations around the world relating primarily to the process by which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association (“BBA”) in connection with the setting of the BBA’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for various currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by which information on rates is submitted to the European Banking Federation (“EBF”) in connection with the setting of the EBF’s Euro Interbank Offered Rates (“EURIBOR”) and to the Japanese Bankers’ Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered Rates (“TIBOR”), as well as processes for the setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates and other reference rates in various parts of the world during similar time periods. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries. As previously reported, the Firm has resolved EC inquiries relating to Yen LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR. In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR, to which the Firm has filed a response and made oral representations. Other inquiries have been discontinued without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the FCA and the Canadian Competition Bureau. In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions filed in various United States District Courts, in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation. The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions and most U.S. dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. Certain plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that plaintiffs have the jurisdictional right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on remand in November 2015. The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodities Exchange Act. Madoff Litigation. Various subsidiaries of the Firm, including J.P. Morgan Securities plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited, so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions seek to recover payments made by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155 million. All but two of these actions have been dismissed. In addition, a putative 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 the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending putative class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those previously raised -- and resolved as to the Firm -- by the court-appointed trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The District Court dismissed these complaints and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari in March 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently served a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to have the Court reconsider its prior decision in light of another recent appellate decision. That motion was denied in June 2015. The Firm is a defendant in five other Madoff-related individual investor actions pending in New York state court. 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. In August 2014, the Court dismissed all claims against the Firm. In January 2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. A putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law and statutory claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes. The Firm moved to transfer both the Florida and New Jersey actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Florida court denied the transfer motion, but subsequently granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss the case in September 2015. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, which is pending. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court. The New Jersey court granted the transfer motion to the Southern District of New York, and the Firm has moved to dismiss the case pending in New York. Three shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in New York federal and state court against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm’s relationship with Bernard Madoff and the alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions. The actions seek declaratory relief and damages. All three actions have been dismissed. The plaintiff in one action did not appeal, the dismissal has been affirmed on appeal in another action, and one appeal remains pending. Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Related Regulatory Investigations. The Firm and affiliates (together, “JPMC”), Bear Stearns and affiliates (together, “Bear Stearns”) and certain Washington Mutual affiliates (together, “Washington Mutual”) have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in offerings of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). These cases include actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings. Following the settlements referred to below, there are currently pending and tolled investor claims involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately $4.2 billion, of which $2.6 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $1.6 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter. The Firm and certain of its current and former officers and Board members have also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts should be repurchased. Issuer Litigation – Class Actions. JPMC has fully resolved all pending putative class actions on behalf of purchasers of MBS. Issuer Litigation – Individual Purchaser Actions. The Firm is defending individual actions brought against JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as MBS issuers (and, in some cases, also as underwriters of their own MBS offerings). The Firm has settled a number of these actions. Several actions remain pending in federal and state courts across the U.S. and are in various stages of litigation. Monoline Insurer Litigation. The Firm has settled two pending actions relating to a monoline insurer’s guarantees of principal and interest on certain classes of 11 different Bear Stearns MBS offerings. This settlement fully resolves all pending actions by monoline insurers against the Firm relating to RMBS issued and/or sponsored by the Firm. Underwriter Actions. In actions against the Firm involving offerings where the Firm was solely 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 in various situations, such as where the issuers are now defunct. Currently there is one such action pending against the Firm relating to a single offering of another issuer. Repurchase Litigation. The Firm is defending a number of actions brought by trustees, securities administrators or master servicers of various MBS trusts on behalf of purchasers of securities issued by those trusts. These cases generally allege breaches of various representations and warranties regarding securitized loans and seek repurchase of those loans or equivalent monetary relief, as well as indemnification of attorneys’ fees and costs and other remedies. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for various MBS trusts, has filed such a suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) in connection with a significant number of MBS issued by Washington Mutual; that case is described in the Washington Mutual Litigations section below. Other repurchase actions, each specific to one or more MBS transactions issued by JPMC and/or Bear Stearns, are in various stages of litigation. In addition, the Firm and a group of 21 institutional MBS investors made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by JPMC and Bear Stearns providing for the payment of $4.5 billion and the implementation of certain servicing changes by JPMC, to resolve all repurchase and servicing claims that have been asserted or could have been asserted with respect to 330 MBS trusts created between 2005 and 2008. The offer does not resolve claims relating to Washington Mutual MBS. The trustees (or separate and successor trustees) for this group of 330 trusts have accepted the settlement for 319 trusts in whole or in part and excluded from the settlement 16 trusts in whole or in part. The trustees’ acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding initiated by the trustees and pending in New York state court. The judicial approval hearing was held in January 2016, and the parties are awaiting a decision. An investor in some of the trusts for which the settlement has been accepted has intervened in the judicial approval proceeding to challenge the trustees’ allocation of the settlement among the trusts. Separately, in October 2015, JPMC reached agreements to resolve repurchase and servicing claims for four trusts among the 16 that were previously excluded from the trustee settlement. In December 2015, the court approved the trustees’ decision to accept these separate settlements. The trustees are seeking to obtain certain remaining approvals necessary to effectuate these settlements. Additional actions have been filed against third-party trustees that relate to loan repurchase and servicing claims involving trusts sponsored by JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Derivative Actions. Shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities have been filed against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors, in New York state court and California federal court. Two of the New York actions have been dismissed, one of which is on appeal. A consolidated action in California federal court has been dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and plaintiffs are pursuing discovery relating to jurisdiction. Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation. The Firm is responding to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ’s Criminal Division and two United States Attorney’s Offices relating to MBS offerings securitized and sold by the Firm and its subsidiaries. The Firm has also received subpoenas and informal requests for information from state authorities concerning the issuance and underwriting of MBS-related matters. The Firm continues to respond to these MBS-related regulatory inquiries. In addition, the Firm continues to cooperate with investigations by the DOJ, including the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, and by the SEC Division of Enforcement and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, all of which relate to, among other matters, communications with counterparties in connection with certain secondary market trading in residential and commercial MBS. The Firm has entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased MBS that toll applicable limitations periods with respect to their claims, and has settled, and in the future may settle, tolled claims. There is no assurance that the Firm will not be named as a defendant in additional MBS-related litigation. Mortgage-Related Investigations and Litigation. One shareholder derivative action has been filed in New York Supreme 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. In December 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and in January 2016, the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. The Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation concerning the Firm’s compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in connection with its mortgage lending practices. In addition, three municipalities have commenced litigation against the Firm alleging violations of an unfair competition law or the Fair Housing Act. The municipalities seek, among other things, civil penalties for the unfair competition claim, and, for the Fair Housing Act claims, damages resulting from lost tax revenue and increased municipal costs associated with foreclosed properties. Two of the municipal actions are stayed, and a motion to dismiss is pending in the remaining action. In March 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A entered into a settlement agreement with the Executive Office for United States Bankruptcy Trustees and the United States Trustee Program (collectively, the “Bankruptcy Trustee”) to resolve issues relating to mortgage payment change notices and escrow statements in bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2016, the OCC determined that, among other things, the mortgage payment change notices issues that were the subject of the settlement with the Bankruptcy Trustee violated the 2011 mortgage servicing-related consent order entered into by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the OCC (as amended in 2013 and 2015), and assessed a $48 million civil money penalty. The OCC concurrently terminated that consent order. Municipal Derivatives Litigation. Several civil actions were commenced in New York and Alabama courts against the Firm relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions. The claims in the civil actions generally alleged 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 County filed for bankruptcy in November 2011. In June 2013, the County filed a Chapter 9 Plan of Adjustment, as amended (the “Plan of Adjustment”), which provided that all the above-described actions against the Firm would be released and dismissed with prejudice. In November 2013, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan of Adjustment, and in December 2013, certain sewer rate payers filed an appeal challenging the confirmation of the Plan of Adjustment. All conditions to the Plan of Adjustment’s effectiveness, including the dismissal of the actions against the Firm, were satisfied or waived and the transactions contemplated by the Plan of Adjustment occurred in December 2013. Accordingly, all the above-described actions against the Firm have been dismissed pursuant to the terms of the Plan of Adjustment. The appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Plan of Adjustment remains pending. 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 certain putative 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. Proprietary Products Investigations and Litigation. In December 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC agreed to a settlement with the SEC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. agreed to a settlement with the CFTC, regarding disclosures to clients concerning conflicts associated with the Firm’s sale and use of proprietary products, such as J.P. Morgan mutual funds, in the Firm’s wealth management businesses, and the U.S. Private Bank’s disclosures concerning the use of hedge funds that pay placement agent fees to JPMorgan Chase broker-dealer affiliates. As part of the settlements, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC paid penalties, disgorgement and interest totaling approximately $307 million. The Firm continues to cooperate with inquiries from other government authorities concerning disclosure of conflicts associated with the Firm’s sale and use of proprietary products. A putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of financial advisory clients from 2007 to the present whose funds were invested in proprietary funds and who were charged investment management fees, was dismissed by the Court. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the dismissal is pending. Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. Various regulators are investigating, among other things, the Firm’s compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the Firm’s hiring practices related to candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials, and its engagement of consultants in the Asia Pacific region. The Firm is responding to and cooperating with these investigations. Washington Mutual Litigations. 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 and amended to include JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a defendant, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual affiliates in connection with mortgage securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. may have assumed liabilities for the alleged breaches of representations and warranties in the mortgage securitization agreements. In June 2015, the court ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on the question of whether the Firm or the FDIC bears responsibility for Washington Mutual Bank’s repurchase obligations, holding that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. assumed only those liabilities that were reflected on Washington Mutual Bank’s financial accounting records as of September 25, 2008, and only up to the amount of the book value reflected therein. The FDIC is appealing that ruling and the case has otherwise been stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. Certain holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt filed an action against JPMorgan Chase which alleged that by acquiring substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. caused Washington Mutual Bank to default on its bond obligations. JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC moved to dismiss this action and the District Court dismissed the case except as to the plaintiffs’ claim that JPMorgan Chase tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs’ bond contracts with Washington Mutual Bank prior to its closure. The action has been stayed pending a decision on JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ remaining claim. JPMorgan Chase has also filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDIC, in its corporate capacity as well as in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, asserting multiple claims for indemnification under the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC relating to JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of most of the assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank. Wendel. Since 2012, the French criminal authorities have been investigating a series of transactions entered into by senior managers of Wendel Investissement (“Wendel”) during the period from 2004 through 2007 to restructure their shareholdings in Wendel. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Paris branch provided financing for the transactions to a number of managers of Wendel in 2007. In April 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was notified that the authorities were formally investigating the role of its Paris branch in the transactions, including alleged criminal tax abuse. JPMorgan Chase is responding to and cooperating with the investigation. In addition, civil proceedings have been commenced against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. by a number of the managers. The claims are separate, involve different allegations and are at various stages of proceedings. * * * 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 and inquiries. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and inquiries, and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings and inquiries may be initiated from time to time in the future. The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. In accordance with the provisions of U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Firm accrues for a litigation-related liability when it is probable that such a 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 downward, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Firm incurred legal expense of $3.0 billion, $2.9 billion and $11.1 billion, respectively. 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 December 31, 2015, the Firm and its subsidiaries and affiliates 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 $3.6 billion at December 31, 2015. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses is based upon currently available information for those proceedings in which the Firm believes that an estimate of reasonably possible loss can be made. For certain matters, the Firm does not believe that such an estimate can be made. The Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses involves significant judgment, given the number, variety and varying stages of the proceedings (including the fact that many are 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, particularly proceedings that could result from government investigations. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly.

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

Auto Dealer Regulatory Matter. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is investigating potential statistical disparities in markups charged to borrowers of different races and ethnicities by automobile dealers on loans originated by those dealers and purchased by the Firm.

CIO Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action, a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and seven shareholder derivative actions brought in Delaware state court and in New York federal and state courts relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm will pay $150 million, has been preliminarily approved by the court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed, and plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. Six of the seven shareholder derivative actions have been dismissed.

Credit Default Swaps Investigations and Litigation. In July 2013, the European Commission (the “EC”) filed a Statement of Objections against the Firm (including various subsidiaries) and other industry members in connection with its ongoing investigation into the credit default swaps (“CDS”) marketplace. The EC asserted that between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment banks acted collectively through the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) and Markit Group Limited (“Markit”) to foreclose exchanges from the potential market for exchange-traded credit derivatives. In December 2015, the EC announced the closure of its investigation as to the Firm and other investment banks.

Separately, the Firm and other defendants have entered separate agreements to settle a consolidated putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS. The complaint in this action had alleged that the defendant investment banks and dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA, collectively prevented new entrants into the market for exchange-traded CDS products. These settlements are subject to Court approval.

Custody Assets Investigation. The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) has closed its previously-reported investigation concerning compliance by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., London branch and J.P. Morgan Europe Limited with the FCA’s rules regarding the provision of custody services relating to the administration of client assets.

Foreign Exchange Investigations and Litigation. The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government authorities relating to its foreign exchange (“FX”) sales and trading activities and controls related to those activities. FX-related investigations and inquiries by other, non-U.S. government authorities, including competition authorities, remain ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with those matters.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by U.S.-based plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the “U.S. class action”). In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the “exchanged-based actions”), consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the “consumer actions”), and participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the “ERISA actions”). In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the U.S. class action filed an amended complaint, and the Court consolidated the exchange-based actions into the U.S. class action. The Firm has entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based actions, and that agreement is subject to Court approval. The consumer actions and ERISA actions remain pending.

In September 2015, two class actions were filed in Canada against the Firm as well as a number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument. The second action seeks to represent only those persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions.

General Motors Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. participated in, and was the Administrative Agent on behalf of a syndicate of lenders on, a $1.5 billion syndicated Term Loan facility (“Term Loan”) for General Motors Corporation (“GM”). In July 2009, in connection with the GM bankruptcy proceedings, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company (“Creditors Committee”) filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in its individual capacity and as Administrative Agent for other lenders on the Term Loan, seeking to hold the underlying lien invalid based on the filing of a UCC-3 termination statement relating to the Term Loan. In March 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Creditors Committee’s complaint on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. did not authorize the filing of the UCC-3 termination statement at issue. The Creditors Committee appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of its claim to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In January 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of the Creditors Committee’s claim and remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court with instructions to enter partial summary judgment for the Creditors Committee as to the termination statement. The proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court continue with respect to, among other things, additional defenses asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the value of additional collateral on the Term Loan that was unaffected by the filing of the termination statement at issue. In addition, certain Term Loan lenders filed cross-claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the Bankruptcy Court seeking indemnification and asserting various claims.

Interchange Litigation. A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain 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 parties have entered into an agreement to settle the cases for a cash payment of $6.1 billion to the class plaintiffs (of which the Firm’s share is approximately 20%) and an amount equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within 60 days of the end of the opt-out period. The agreement also provides for modifications to each credit card network’s rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the Court issued a decision granting final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants appealed, and oral argument was held in September 2015. Certain merchants and trade associations have also filed a motion with the District Court seeking to set aside the approval of the class settlement on the basis of alleged improper communications between one of MasterCard’s former outside counsel and one of plaintiffs’ outside counsel. That motion remains pending. Certain merchants that opted out of the class settlement have filed actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks. Defendants’ motion to dismiss those actions was denied in July 2014.

Investment Management Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending cases that are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes, alleging that investment portfolios managed by J.P. Morgan Investment Management (“JPMIM”) were inappropriately invested in securities backed by residential real estate collateral. Plaintiffs Assured Guaranty (U.K.) and Ambac Assurance UK Limited claim that JPMIM is liable for total losses of more than $1 billion in market value of these securities. Discovery has been completed. In January 2016, plaintiffs filed a joint partial motion for summary judgment in the coordinated actions.

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 asserted both federal bankruptcy law and state common law claims, and sought, among other relief, to recover $7.9 billion in collateral (after deducting $700 million of returned collateral) that was transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the weeks preceding LBHI’s bankruptcy. The amended complaint also sought unspecified damages on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s collateral requests hastened LBHI’s bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the claims in the amended complaint that sought to void the allegedly constructively fraudulent and preferential transfers made to the Firm during September 2008, but did not dismiss the other claims, including claims for duress and fraud. The Firm filed counterclaims against LBHI, including alleging that LBHI fraudulently induced the Firm to make large extensions of credit against inappropriate collateral in connection with the Firm’s role as the clearing bank for Lehman Brothers Inc. (“LBI”), LBHI’s broker-dealer subsidiary. These extensions of credit left the Firm with more than $25 billion in claims against the estate of LBI, which was repaid principally through collateral posted by LBHI and LBI. In September 2015, the District Court, to which the case had been transferred from the Bankruptcy Court, granted summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on most of the claims against it that the Bankruptcy Court had not previously dismissed, including the claims for duress and fraud. The District Court also denied LBHI’s motion for summary judgment on certain of its claims and for dismissal of the Firm’s counterclaims. The claims that remained following the District Court’s ruling challenged the propriety of the Firm’s post-petition payment, from collateral posted by LBHI, of approximately $1.9 billion of derivatives, repo and securities lending claims.

In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and several of its subsidiaries that had been Chapter 11 debtors had filed a separate complaint and objection to derivatives claims asserted by the Firm alleging that the amount of the derivatives claims had been overstated and challenging certain set-offs taken by JPMorgan Chase entities to recover on the claims. In January 2015, LBHI filed claims objections with respect to guaranty claims asserted by the Firm arising from close-outs of derivatives transactions with LBI and one of its affiliates, and a claim objection with respect to derivatives close-out claims acquired by the Firm in the Washington Mutual transaction.

In January 2016, the parties reached an agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, under which the Firm will pay $1.42 billion to settle all of the claims, counterclaims and claims objections, including all appeal rights, except for the claims specified in the following paragraph. One pro se objector is seeking to appeal the settlement.

The settlement did not resolve the following remaining matters: In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and the Committee filed an objection to the claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to clearing advances made to LBI, principally on the grounds that the Firm had not conducted the sale of the securities collateral held for its claims in a commercially reasonable manner. In January 2015, LBHI brought two claims objections relating to securities lending claims and a group of other smaller claims. Discovery with respect to these objections is ongoing.

LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate Investigations and Litigation. JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies and entities, including the DOJ, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and various state attorneys general, as well as the EC, the FCA, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and banking associations around the world relating primarily to the process by which interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association (“BBA”) in connection with the setting of the BBA’s London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) for various currencies, principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to similar processes by which information on rates is submitted to the European Banking Federation (“EBF”) in connection with the setting of the EBF’s Euro Interbank Offered Rates (“EURIBOR”) and to the Japanese Bankers’ Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank Offered Rates (“TIBOR”), as well as processes for the setting of U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates and other reference rates in various parts of the world during similar time periods. The Firm is responding to and continuing to cooperate with these inquiries. As previously reported, the Firm has resolved EC inquiries relating to Yen LIBOR and Swiss Franc LIBOR. In May 2014, the EC issued a Statement of Objections outlining its case against the Firm (and others) as to EURIBOR, to which the Firm has filed a response and made oral representations. Other inquiries have been discontinued without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the FCA and the Canadian Competition Bureau.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions filed in various United States District Courts, in which plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions and most U.S. dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. Certain plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that plaintiffs have the jurisdictional right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on remand in November 2015.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodities Exchange Act.

Madoff Litigation. Various subsidiaries of the Firm, including J.P. Morgan Securities plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited, so-called Madoff feeder funds. These actions seek to recover payments made by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155 million. All but two of these actions have been dismissed.

In addition, a putative 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 the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending putative class action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints largely track those previously raised -- and resolved as to the Firm -- by the court-appointed trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. The District Court dismissed these complaints and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for a writ of certiorari in March 2015. Plaintiffs subsequently served a motion in the Court of Appeals seeking to have the Court reconsider its prior decision in light of another recent appellate decision. That motion was denied in June 2015.

The Firm is a defendant in five other Madoff-related individual investor actions pending in New York state court. 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. In August 2014, the Court dismissed all claims against the Firm. In January 2016, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal.

A putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and multiple common law and statutory claims including breach of trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment, conversion and commercial bad faith. A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes. The Firm moved to transfer both the Florida and New Jersey actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Florida court denied the transfer motion, but subsequently granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss the case in September 2015. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, which is pending. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court. The New Jersey court granted the transfer motion to the Southern District of New York, and the Firm has moved to dismiss the case pending in New York.

Three shareholder derivative actions have also been filed in New York federal and state court against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former Board members, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Firm’s relationship with Bernard Madoff and the alleged failure to maintain effective internal controls to detect fraudulent transactions. The actions seek declaratory relief and damages. All three actions have been dismissed. The plaintiff in one action did not appeal, the dismissal has been affirmed on appeal in another action, and one appeal remains pending.

Mortgage-Backed Securities and Repurchase Litigation and Related Regulatory Investigations. The Firm and affiliates (together, “JPMC”), Bear Stearns and affiliates (together, “Bear Stearns”) and certain Washington Mutual affiliates (together, “Washington Mutual”) have been named as defendants in a number of cases in their various roles in offerings of mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”). These cases include actions by individual MBS purchasers and actions by monoline insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and interest for particular tranches of MBS offerings. Following the settlements referred to below, there are currently pending and tolled investor claims involving MBS with an original principal balance of approximately $4.2 billion, of which $2.6 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual as issuer and $1.6 billion involves JPMC, Bear Stearns or Washington Mutual solely as underwriter. The Firm and certain of its current and former officers and Board members have also been sued in shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities, and trustees have asserted or have threatened to assert claims that loans in securitization trusts should be repurchased.

Issuer Litigation – Class Actions. JPMC has fully resolved all pending putative class actions on behalf of purchasers of MBS.

Issuer Litigation – Individual Purchaser Actions. The Firm is defending individual actions brought against JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as MBS issuers (and, in some cases, also as underwriters of their own MBS offerings). The Firm has settled a number of these actions. Several actions remain pending in federal and state courts across the U.S. and are in various stages of litigation.

Monoline Insurer Litigation. The Firm has settled two pending actions relating to a monoline insurer’s guarantees of principal and interest on certain classes of 11 different Bear Stearns MBS offerings. This settlement fully resolves all pending actions by monoline insurers against the Firm relating to RMBS issued and/or sponsored by the Firm.

Underwriter Actions. In actions against the Firm involving offerings where the Firm was solely 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 in various situations, such as where the issuers are now defunct. Currently there is one such action pending against the Firm relating to a single offering of another issuer.

Repurchase Litigation. The Firm is defending a number of actions brought by trustees, securities administrators or master servicers of various MBS trusts on behalf of purchasers of securities issued by those trusts. These cases generally allege breaches of various representations and warranties regarding securitized loans and seek repurchase of those loans or equivalent monetary relief, as well as indemnification of attorneys’ fees and costs and other remedies. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for various MBS trusts, has filed such a suit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) in connection with a significant number of MBS issued by Washington Mutual; that case is described in the Washington Mutual Litigations section below. Other repurchase actions, each specific to one or more MBS transactions issued by JPMC and/or Bear Stearns, are in various stages of litigation.

In addition, the Firm and a group of 21 institutional MBS investors made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by JPMC and Bear Stearns providing for the payment of $4.5 billion and the implementation of certain servicing changes by JPMC, to resolve all repurchase and servicing claims that have been asserted or could have been asserted with respect to 330 MBS trusts created between 2005 and 2008. The offer does not resolve claims relating to Washington Mutual MBS. The trustees (or separate and successor trustees) for this group of 330 trusts have accepted the settlement for 319 trusts in whole or in part and excluded from the settlement 16 trusts in whole or in part. The trustees’ acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding initiated by the trustees and pending in New York state court. The judicial approval hearing was held in January 2016, and the parties are awaiting a decision. An investor in some of the trusts for which the settlement has been accepted has intervened in the judicial approval proceeding to challenge the trustees’ allocation of the settlement among the trusts. Separately, in October 2015, JPMC reached agreements to resolve repurchase and servicing claims for four trusts among the 16 that were previously excluded from the trustee settlement. In December 2015, the court approved the trustees’ decision to accept these separate settlements. The trustees are seeking to obtain certain remaining approvals necessary to effectuate these settlements.

Additional actions have been filed against third-party trustees that relate to loan repurchase and servicing claims involving trusts sponsored by JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.

Derivative Actions. Shareholder derivative actions relating to the Firm’s MBS activities have been filed against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors, in New York state court and California federal court. Two of the New York actions have been dismissed, one of which is on appeal. A consolidated action in California federal court has been dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction and plaintiffs are pursuing discovery relating to jurisdiction.

Government Enforcement Investigations and Litigation. The Firm is responding to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ’s Criminal Division and two United States Attorney’s Offices relating to MBS offerings securitized and sold by the Firm and its subsidiaries. The Firm has also received subpoenas and informal requests for information from state authorities concerning the issuance and underwriting of MBS-related matters. The Firm continues to respond to these MBS-related regulatory inquiries.

In addition, the Firm continues to cooperate with investigations by the DOJ, including the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, and by the SEC Division of Enforcement and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, all of which relate to, among other matters, communications with counterparties in connection with certain secondary market trading in residential and commercial MBS.

The Firm has entered into agreements with a number of entities that purchased MBS that toll applicable limitations periods with respect to their claims, and has settled, and in the future may settle, tolled claims. There is no assurance that the Firm will not be named as a defendant in additional MBS-related litigation.

Mortgage-Related Investigations and Litigation. One shareholder derivative action has been filed in New York Supreme 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. In December 2014, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and in January 2016, the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

The Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation concerning the Firm’s compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act in connection with its mortgage lending practices. In addition, three municipalities have commenced litigation against the Firm alleging violations of an unfair competition law or the Fair Housing Act. The municipalities seek, among other things, civil penalties for the unfair competition claim, and, for the Fair Housing Act claims, damages resulting from lost tax revenue and increased municipal costs associated with foreclosed properties. Two of the municipal actions are stayed, and a motion to dismiss is pending in the remaining action.

In March 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A entered into a settlement agreement with the Executive Office for United States Bankruptcy Trustees and the United States Trustee Program (collectively, the “Bankruptcy Trustee”) to resolve issues relating to mortgage payment change notices and escrow statements in bankruptcy proceedings. In January 2016, the OCC determined that, among other things, the mortgage payment change notices issues that were the subject of the settlement with the Bankruptcy Trustee violated the 2011 mortgage servicing-related consent order entered into by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the OCC (as amended in 2013 and 2015), and assessed a $48 million civil money penalty. The OCC concurrently terminated that consent order.

Municipal Derivatives Litigation. Several civil actions were commenced in New York and Alabama courts against the Firm relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) warrant underwritings and swap transactions. The claims in the civil actions generally alleged 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 County filed for bankruptcy in November 2011. In June 2013, the County filed a Chapter 9 Plan of Adjustment, as amended (the “Plan of Adjustment”), which provided that all the above-described actions against the Firm would be released and dismissed with prejudice. In November 2013, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan of Adjustment, and in December 2013, certain sewer rate payers filed an appeal challenging the confirmation of the Plan of Adjustment. All conditions to the Plan of Adjustment’s effectiveness, including the dismissal of the actions against the Firm, were satisfied or waived and the transactions contemplated by the Plan of Adjustment occurred in December 2013. Accordingly, all the above-described actions against the Firm have been dismissed pursuant to the terms of the Plan of Adjustment. The appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Plan of Adjustment remains pending.

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 certain putative 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.

Proprietary Products Investigations and Litigation. In December 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC agreed to a settlement with the SEC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. agreed to a settlement with the CFTC, regarding disclosures to clients concerning conflicts associated with the Firm’s sale and use of proprietary products, such as J.P. Morgan mutual funds, in the Firm’s wealth management businesses, and the U.S. Private Bank’s disclosures concerning the use of hedge funds that pay placement agent fees to JPMorgan Chase broker-dealer affiliates. As part of the settlements, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC paid penalties, disgorgement and interest totaling approximately $307 million. The Firm continues to cooperate with inquiries from other government authorities concerning disclosure of conflicts associated with the Firm’s sale and use of proprietary products. A putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of financial advisory clients from 2007 to the present whose funds were invested in proprietary funds and who were charged investment management fees, was dismissed by the Court. Plaintiffs’ appeal of the dismissal is pending.

Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. Various regulators are investigating, among other things, the Firm’s compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other laws with respect to the Firm’s hiring practices related to candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials, and its engagement of consultants in the Asia Pacific region. The Firm is responding to and cooperating with these investigations.

Washington Mutual Litigations. 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 and amended to include JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as a defendant, asserting an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion in damages based upon alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual affiliates in connection with mortgage securitization agreements. The case includes assertions that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. may have assumed liabilities for the alleged breaches of representations and warranties in the mortgage securitization agreements. In June 2015, the court ruled in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on the question of whether the Firm or the FDIC bears responsibility for Washington Mutual Bank’s repurchase obligations, holding that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. assumed only those liabilities that were reflected on Washington Mutual Bank’s financial accounting records as of September 25, 2008, and only up to the amount of the book value reflected therein. The FDIC is appealing that ruling and the case has otherwise been stayed pending the outcome of that appeal.

Certain holders of Washington Mutual Bank debt filed an action against JPMorgan Chase which alleged that by acquiring substantially all of the assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. caused Washington Mutual Bank to default on its bond obligations. JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC moved to dismiss this action and the District Court dismissed the case except as to the plaintiffs’ claim that JPMorgan Chase tortiously interfered with the plaintiffs’ bond contracts with Washington Mutual Bank prior to its closure. The action has been stayed pending a decision on JPMorgan Chase’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ remaining claim.

JPMorgan Chase has also filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDIC, in its corporate capacity as well as in its capacity as receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, asserting multiple claims for indemnification under the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement between JPMorgan Chase and the FDIC relating to JPMorgan Chase’s purchase of most of the assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank.

Wendel. Since 2012, the French criminal authorities have been investigating a series of transactions entered into by senior managers of Wendel Investissement (“Wendel”) during the period from 2004 through 2007 to restructure their shareholdings in Wendel. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Paris branch provided financing for the transactions to a number of managers of Wendel in 2007. In April 2015, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was notified that the authorities were formally investigating the role of its Paris branch in the transactions, including alleged criminal tax abuse. JPMorgan Chase is responding to and cooperating with the investigation. In addition, civil proceedings have been commenced against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. by a number of the managers. The claims are separate, involve different allegations and are at various stages of proceedings.

* * *

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 and inquiries. The Firm believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it in its currently outstanding legal proceedings and inquiries, and it intends to defend itself vigorously in all such matters. Additional legal proceedings and inquiries may be initiated from time to time in the future.

The Firm has established reserves for several hundred of its currently outstanding legal proceedings. In accordance with the provisions of U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Firm accrues for a litigation-related liability when it is probable that such a 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 downward, as appropriate, based on management’s best judgment after consultation with counsel. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the Firm incurred legal expense of $3.0 billion, $2.9 billion and $11.1 billion, respectively. 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.