As of March 31, 2019, the Firm and its subsidiaries and affiliates are defendants, putative defendants or respondents 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 several 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 $1.4 billion at March 31, 2019. This estimated aggregate range of reasonably possible losses was based upon information available as of that date 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:

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 and working to resolve those matters. In May 2015, the Firm pleaded guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law. In January 2017, the Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered thereafter and a term of probation ending in January 2020. The Department of Labor has granted the Firm a five-year exemption of disqualification that allows the Firm and its affiliates to continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) until January 2023. The Firm will need to reapply in due course for a further exemption to cover the remainder of the ten-year disqualification period. Separately, in February 2017 the South Africa Competition Commission referred its FX investigation of the Firm and other banks to the South Africa Competition Tribunal, which is conducting civil proceedings concerning that matter.

The Firm is also one of a number of foreign exchange dealers named as defendants in 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. The Court granted final approval of that settlement agreement in August 2018. Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange dealers in November 2018 (the “opt-out action”). The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal in July 2018. The second ERISA action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in November 2018. The indirect purchaser action, the

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 thereafter continued 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 in the Bankruptcy Court against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. seeking indemnification and asserting various claims. In January 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to fully resolve the litigation, including the cross-claims filed against the Firm. The agreement is subject to definitive documentation and court approval, and is not expected to have any material impact on the Firm. The Bankruptcy Court has stayed all deadlines in the action to allow the parties to finalize the settlement agreement for submission to the Bankruptcy Court.

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 and enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws. The parties settled the cases for a cash payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and modifications to certain credit card network rules. In December 2013, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement.

A number of merchants appealed the settlement 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. In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. The original class action was divided into two separate actions, one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking primarily injunctive relief. In September

2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the modified settlement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants have collectively contributed an additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the original settlement. In January 2019, the amended agreement was preliminarily approved by the District Court, and formal notice of the class settlement is proceeding in accordance with the District Court’s order. The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues separately.

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. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and various state attorneys general, as well as the European Commission (“EC”), 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 was submitted to the European Banking Federation (“EBF”) in connection with the setting of the EBF’s Euro Interbank Offered Rate (“EURIBOR”). The Firm continues to cooperate with these investigations to the extent that they are ongoing. 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 of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal is pending.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions related to benchmarks filed in various United States District Courts, including three putative class actions relating to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by ICE Benchmark Administration. 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 various benchmark rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial

In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA, the District Court dismissed certain claims, including antitrust claims brought by some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did not have standing to assert such claims, and permitted certain claims to proceed, including antitrust claims, claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law claims. The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for lack of standing have filed an appeal. The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other plaintiffs.

Municipal Derivatives Litigation. Several civil actions were commenced against the Firm generally alleging that it had made payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to underwrite warrants issued by Jefferson County, Alabama (the “County”) and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the County. After the County filed for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed a Plan of Adjustment which provided that all of these actions against the Firm would be released and dismissed with prejudice. The Plan of Adjustment became effective, and these actions were dismissed in December 2013. The appeal by certain sewer rate payers of the Bankruptcy Court’s order confirming the Plan of Adjustment has been dismissed, and the Supreme Court of the United States has denied the sewer rate payers’ petition for review.

Metals Investigations and Litigation. Various authorities, including the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading practices in the metals markets and related conduct. The Firm is responding to and cooperating with these investigations. Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Firm and certain current and former employees, alleging a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019. The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation of the Sherman Act.

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 in November 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, with respect to the criminal proceedings. In January 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal issued a decision cancelling the mise en examen of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The Court of Cassation ruled in September 2018 that a mise en examen is a prerequisite for an ordonnance de renvoi and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to consider JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s application for the annulment of the ordonnance de renvoi referring JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to the French tribunal correctionnel. Any further actions in the criminal proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of that application. In addition, a number of the managers have commenced civil proceedings against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 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. 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. The Firm’s legal expense was a benefit of $(81) million and expense of $70 million for the three months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. There is no assurance that the Firm’s litigation reserves will not need to be adjusted in the future.