Litigation	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Contingencies As of December 31, 2016, 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 $3.0 billion at December 31, 2016. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses was 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, as of that date. 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, including where the Firm has made assumptions concerning future rulings by the court or other adjudicator, or about the behavior or incentives of adverse parties or regulatory authorities, and those assumptions prove to be incorrect. In addition, the outcome of a particular proceeding may be a result which the Firm did not take into account in its estimate because the Firm had deemed the likelihood of that outcome to be remote. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly. Set forth below are descriptions of the Firm’s material legal proceedings. CIO Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action, and in a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio formerly managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm paid $150 million, has received full and final approval from the Court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed. That dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court, and a request by the plaintiffs for rehearing by the full appellate court was denied. 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 government authorities, including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with those matters. In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law, and in January 2017, the Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered shortly thereafter. The Department of Labor granted the Firm a temporary one-year waiver, which was effective upon entry of judgment, to allow the Firm and its affiliates to continue to qualify for the Qualified Professional Asset Manager exemption under ERISA. The Firm’s application for a lengthier exemption is pending. Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition Commission announced that it had referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal to commence civil proceedings. 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 action”), participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the “ERISA actions”), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the “indirect purchaser action”). Since then, 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 has been preliminarily approved by the Court. The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The consumer action, a second ERISA action and the indirect purchaser action remain pending in the District Court. 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 was filed in the province of Quebec, and seeks authorization to represent only those persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions. In late 2016, the Firm settled the Canadian class actions; those settlements are subject to Court approval. 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 January 2015, following several court proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 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 provided for modifications to each credit card network’s rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement. A number of merchants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court’s certification of the class action and reversed the approval of the class settlement. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed petitions seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Second Circuit’s decision. In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are proceeding. Investment Management Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending cases that are coordinated for pre-trial and 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. In February 2017, the Court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor as to the interpretation of an applicable statutory provision and the rejection of a certain defense, but otherwise preserved for trial the determination of whether JPMIM breached the governing contract and is liable for plaintiffs’ claimed losses under the standard of gross negligence. The trial is scheduled to begin in March 2017. Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. In January 2016, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and several of LBHI’s subsidiaries reached an agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, resolving several disputes between the parties. The January 2016 settlement did not resolve the following remaining matters: In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an objection to the claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to clearing advances made to Lehman Brothers Inc., 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. LBHI also brought two claims objections relating to securities lending claims and a group of other smaller claims. In January 2017, the Firm entered into an agreement to settle all of these remaining claims, and this settlement has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court. 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 U.S. Department of Justice (“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 European Commission (“EC”), the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission (“ComCo”) 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 December 2016, the Firm resolved ComCo inquiries relating to these same rates. ComCo’s investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the EC issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal with the European General Court. In June 2016, the DOJ informed the Firm that the DOJ had closed its inquiry into LIBOR and other benchmark rates with respect to the Firm without taking action. Other inquiries have been discontinued without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the SEC, 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. These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions, 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, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (“SIBOR”), Singapore Swap Offer Rate (“SOR”) and/or the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (“BBSW”) 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, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or BBSW and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation. In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded the case to the District Court to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims. In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved in the District Court to dismiss the antitrust claims, and in December 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion, finding that certain plaintiffs lacked standing to assert antitrust claims. Separately, in October 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision that vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. That petition was denied. 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 Commodity Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have been preliminarily approved by the Court. Madoff Litigation. 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, as well as other state and federal claims. 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 Florida court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss the case, and in August 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court, where the Firm’s motion to dismiss is pending. The New Jersey court granted a transfer motion to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal of that dismissal. 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”). Following the settlements referred to below, the remaining civil cases include one investor action, one action by a monoline insurer relating to Bear Stearns’ role solely as underwriter, and actions for repurchase of mortgage loans. 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 one action remains pending. Issuer Litigation – Individual Purchaser Actions. With the exception of one remaining action, the Firm has settled all of the 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). Underwriter Actions. The Firm is defending one remaining action by a monoline insurer relating to Bear Stearns’ role solely as underwriter for another issuer’s MBS offering. The issuer is defunct. Repurchase Litigation. The Firm is defending a number of actions brought by trustees, securities administrators and/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. The Firm has reached a settlement with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for various MBS trusts, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) in connection with the litigation related to 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 has received final approval from the court. 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. The Firm has entered into agreements with a number of MBS trustees or entities that purchased MBS that toll applicable statute of 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. Derivative Actions. A shareholder derivative action against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors relating to the Firm’s MBS activities is pending in California federal court. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action. 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. Mortgage-Related Investigations and Litigation. In January 2017, a Consent Judgment was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York resolving allegations by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the Firm violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by giving pricing discretion to independent mortgage brokers in its wholesale lending distribution channel which, according to the government’s model, may have charged higher fees and interest rates to African-American and Hispanic borrowers than non-Hispanic White borrowers during the period between 2006 and 2009. The Firm denied liability but agreed to pay a total of approximately $55 million to resolve this matter. 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. The municipal actions are stayed pending an appeal by the City of Los Angeles to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court’s review of decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which held, among other things, that the City of Miami has standing under the Fair Housing Act to pursue similar claims against other banks. 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. In January 2017, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs. 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 CCB and AWM 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. The Firm settled with an additional government authority in July 2016, and 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, which was 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. The dismissal has been affirmed on appeal. Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. In November 2016, the Firm entered into settlements with DOJ, the SEC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) to resolve those agencies’ respective investigations relating to a former hiring program for candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials in the Asia Pacific region. Other related investigations are ongoing, and the Firm continues to cooperate 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 has appealed that ruling. 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 Bank, N.A. and the FDIC relating to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s purchase of substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement”). The Firm, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and the FDIC have signed a settlement agreement to resolve (i) pending litigation brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company against the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as defendants, relating to alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual affiliates in connection with mortgage securitization agreements and (ii) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s outstanding indemnification claims pursuant to the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement. The settlement is subject to certain judicial approval procedures, and both matters are stayed pending approval of the settlement. 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. JPMorgan Chase has cooperated with the investigation. The investigating judges issued an ordonnance de renvoi on November 30, 2016, referring JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to the French tribunal correctionnel for alleged complicity in tax fraud. No date for trial has been set by the court. The Firm has been successful in legal challenges made to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, which have been referred back to and remain pending before the Paris Court of Appeal. 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. 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. 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, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the Firm’s legal expense was a benefit of $(317) million and an expense of $3.0 billion and $2.9 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 that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued or that a matter will not have material reputational consequences. 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, 2016, 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 $3.0 billion at December 31, 2016. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses was 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, as of that date. 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, including where the Firm has made assumptions concerning future rulings by the court or other adjudicator, or about the behavior or incentives of adverse parties or regulatory authorities, and those assumptions prove to be incorrect. In addition, the outcome of a particular proceeding may be a result which the Firm did not take into account in its estimate because the Firm had deemed the likelihood of that outcome to be remote. Accordingly, the Firm’s estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses will change from time to time, and actual losses may vary significantly.

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

CIO Litigation. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action, and in a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio formerly managed by the Firm’s Chief Investment Office (“CIO”). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm paid $150 million, has received full and final approval from the Court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed. That dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court, and a request by the plaintiffs for rehearing by the full appellate court was denied.

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 government authorities, including competition authorities, are ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with those matters. In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law, and in January 2017, the Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered shortly thereafter. The Department of Labor granted the Firm a temporary one-year waiver, which was effective upon entry of judgment, to allow the Firm and its affiliates to continue to qualify for the Qualified Professional Asset Manager exemption under ERISA. The Firm’s application for a lengthier exemption is pending. Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition Commission announced that it had referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal to commence civil proceedings.

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 action”), participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the “ERISA actions”), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the “indirect purchaser action”). Since then, 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 has been preliminarily approved by the Court. The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. The consumer action, a second ERISA action and the indirect purchaser action remain pending in the District Court.

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 was filed in the province of Quebec, and seeks authorization to represent only those persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions. In late 2016, the Firm settled the Canadian class actions; those settlements are subject to Court approval.

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 January 2015, following several court proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 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 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 provided for modifications to each credit card network’s rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card transactions. In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement.

A number of merchants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court’s certification of the class action and reversed the approval of the class settlement. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants have filed petitions seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the Second Circuit’s decision.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions against Visa and MasterCard, as well as against the Firm and other banks, and those actions are proceeding.

Investment Management Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending cases that are coordinated for pre-trial and 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. In February 2017, the Court ruled in plaintiffs’ favor as to the interpretation of an applicable statutory provision and the rejection of a certain defense, but otherwise preserved for trial the determination of whether JPMIM breached the governing contract and is liable for plaintiffs’ claimed losses under the standard of gross negligence. The trial is scheduled to begin in March 2017.

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings. In January 2016, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and several of LBHI’s subsidiaries reached an agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, resolving several disputes between the parties. The January 2016 settlement did not resolve the following remaining matters: In the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, LBHI and its Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an objection to the claims asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. against LBHI with respect to clearing advances made to Lehman Brothers Inc., 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. LBHI also brought two claims objections relating to securities lending claims and a group of other smaller claims. In January 2017, the Firm entered into an agreement to settle all of these remaining claims, and this settlement has been approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

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 U.S. Department of Justice (“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 European Commission (“EC”), the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the Canadian Competition Bureau, the Swiss Competition Commission (“ComCo”) 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 December 2016, the Firm resolved ComCo inquiries relating to these same rates. ComCo’s investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the EC issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal with the European General Court. In June 2016, the DOJ informed the Firm that the DOJ had closed its inquiry into LIBOR and other benchmark rates with respect to the Firm without taking action. Other inquiries have been discontinued without any action against JPMorgan Chase, including by the SEC, 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. These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions, 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, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank Offered Rate (“SIBOR”), Singapore Swap Offer Rate (“SOR”) and/or the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (“BBSW”) 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, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or BBSW and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation.

In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded the case to the District Court to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims. In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved in the District Court to dismiss the antitrust claims, and in December 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion, finding that certain plaintiffs lacked standing to assert antitrust claims. Separately, in October 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s decision that vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. That petition was denied.

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 Commodity Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have been preliminarily approved by the Court.

Madoff Litigation. 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, as well as other state and federal claims. 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 Florida court granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss the case, and in August 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court, where the Firm’s motion to dismiss is pending. The New Jersey court granted a transfer motion to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted the Firm’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal of that dismissal.

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”). Following the settlements referred to below, the remaining civil cases include one investor action, one action by a monoline insurer relating to Bear Stearns’ role solely as underwriter, and actions for repurchase of mortgage loans. 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 one action remains pending.

Issuer Litigation – Individual Purchaser Actions. With the exception of one remaining action, the Firm has settled all of the 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).

Underwriter Actions. The Firm is defending one remaining action by a monoline insurer relating to Bear Stearns’ role solely as underwriter for another issuer’s MBS offering. The issuer is defunct.

Repurchase Litigation. The Firm is defending a number of actions brought by trustees, securities administrators and/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. The Firm has reached a settlement with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for various MBS trusts, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) in connection with the litigation related to 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 has received final approval from the court.

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.

The Firm has entered into agreements with a number of MBS trustees or entities that purchased MBS that toll applicable statute of 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.

Derivative Actions. A shareholder derivative action against the Firm, as nominal defendant, and certain of its current and former officers and members of its Board of Directors relating to the Firm’s MBS activities is pending in California federal court. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the action.

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.

Mortgage-Related Investigations and Litigation. In January 2017, a Consent Judgment was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York resolving allegations by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the Firm violated the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act by giving pricing discretion to independent mortgage brokers in its wholesale lending distribution channel which, according to the government’s model, may have charged higher fees and interest rates to African-American and Hispanic borrowers than non-Hispanic White borrowers during the period between 2006 and 2009. The Firm denied liability but agreed to pay a total of approximately $55 million to resolve this matter. 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. The municipal actions are stayed pending an appeal by the City of Los Angeles to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court’s review of decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit which held, among other things, that the City of Miami has standing under the Fair Housing Act to pursue similar claims against other banks.

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. In January 2017, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

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 CCB and AWM 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. The Firm settled with an additional government authority in July 2016, and 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, which was 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. The dismissal has been affirmed on appeal.

Referral Hiring Practices Investigations. In November 2016, the Firm entered into settlements with DOJ, the SEC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) to resolve those agencies’ respective investigations relating to a former hiring program for candidates referred by clients, potential clients and government officials in the Asia Pacific region. Other related investigations are ongoing, and the Firm continues to cooperate 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 has appealed that ruling.

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 Bank, N.A. and the FDIC relating to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s purchase of substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement”).

The Firm, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and the FDIC have signed a settlement agreement to resolve (i) pending litigation brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company against the FDIC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as defendants, relating to alleged breaches of certain representations and warranties given by certain Washington Mutual affiliates in connection with mortgage securitization agreements and (ii) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s outstanding indemnification claims pursuant to the terms of the Purchase & Assumption Agreement. The settlement is subject to certain judicial approval procedures, and both matters are stayed pending approval of the settlement.

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. JPMorgan Chase has cooperated with the investigation. The investigating judges issued an ordonnance de renvoi on November 30, 2016, referring JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to the French tribunal correctionnel for alleged complicity in tax fraud. No date for trial has been set by the court. The Firm has been successful in legal challenges made to the Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, which have been referred back to and remain pending before the Paris Court of Appeal. 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. 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. 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, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the Firm’s legal expense was a benefit of $(317) million and an expense of $3.0 billion and $2.9 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 that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves it has currently accrued or that a matter will not have material reputational consequences. 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.