As of September 30, 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 $1.3 billion at September 30, 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:

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.

Federal Republic of Nigeria Litigation. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. operated an escrow and depository account for the Federal Government of Nigeria (“FGN”) and two major international oil companies. The account held approximately $1.1 billion in connection with a dispute among the clients over rights to an oil field. Following the settlement of the dispute, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. paid out the monies in the account in 2011 and 2013 in accordance with directions received from its clients. In November 2017, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (“FRN”) commenced a claim in the English High Court for approximately $875 million in payments made out of the accounts. The FRN, claiming to be the same entity as the FGN, alleges that the payments were instructed as part of a complex fraud not involving JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., but that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was or should have been on notice that the payments may be fraudulent. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. applied for summary judgment and was unsuccessful. The claim is ongoing and no trial date has been set.

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. In addition, the Firm has paid fines totaling approximately $265 million in connection with the settlement of FX-related investigations conducted by the European Commission and the Swiss Competition Commission which were announced in May 2019 and June 2019, respectively. 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.

federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates and also sought damages on behalf of persons who transacted in FX futures and options on futures. 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 two FX-related actions brought by participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans have been dismissed. Putative class actions on behalf of consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the “consumer action”) and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the “indirect purchaser action”) remain pending in the District Court. In addition, some FX related individual and putative class actions have been filed outside the U.S., including in the U.K., Israel and Australia, which are based on similar alleged underlying conduct.

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 has been completed in accordance with the District Court’s order. A fairness hearing is scheduled before the District Court in November 2019. 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, including U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA and, in a separate consolidated putative class action, 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 instruments whose values are affected by changes in these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These actions are in various stages of litigation.

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, Commodity Exchange Act, 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. The Firm has agreed to settle putative class

actions related to Swiss franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate, the Singapore Swap Offer Rate and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate, as well as certain of the putative class actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR. The District Court declined to grant preliminary approval to the settlement involving the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate and instead dismissed the litigation after concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff’s appeal of the District Court’s decision is pending. The remaining settlements are all subject to further documentation and court approval.

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 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. In January 2018, the Paris Court of Appeal issued a decision cancelling the mise en examen of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. In September 2018, the Court of Cassation, France’s highest court, ruled that a mise en examen is a prerequisite for an ordonnance de renvoi and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal. In June 2019, the Court of Appeal declined to annul the ordonnance de renvoi referring JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to the French tribunal correctionnel, and the Firm has reapplied to the Court of Cassation for a determination as to whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is consistent with the Court of Cassation’s September 2018 ruling. 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

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/(benefit) was $10 million and $20 million for the three months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively, and $(2) million and $90 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2019 and 2018, 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 consequences related to those matters. JPMorgan Chase believes, based upon its current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, consideration of the material legal proceedings described above and after taking into account its current litigation reserves and its estimated aggregate range of possible losses, that the other 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.