JPMorgan's Q4 legal bill breaks $1bn mark in wake of major fines
Bank's legal spend 30% up from same period in 2013
January 14, 2015 at 09:57 AM
2 minute read
JPMorgan Chase paid out $1.1bn (£722m) in legal costs in the fourth quarter of 2014, the bank's latest earnings release has revealed.
The payout put a significant dent in net income, which totalled $4.9bn (£3.2bn) for the quarter, down from $5.3bn (£3.5bn) for the same period in 2013, when legal costs stood at $847m (£555m).
Last November JPMorgan announced that it had reached a $13bn (£8.5bn) settlement with US authorities for misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities during the housing crisis, while the same month, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority fined the bank £222m for "failing to control businesses in their foreign exchange trading operations".
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and Slaughter and May are among law firms known to have been advising JPMorgan, while other firms to have acted for the bank in recent years include Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Allen & Overy.
Over the three months to December, total revenue was $23.6bn (£15.5bn), down 2% on the previous year. The bank said it still maintained a "fortress balance sheet" last quarter, with growth in earnings per share of $1.19 to $1.30.
The bank has blamed legal costs for poor financial performance in the past. In the third quarter of 2013, the $9.2bn (£6bn) bill it incurred – chiefly relating to a settlement with US authorities over allegations it mis-sold mortgage securities – resulted in a $400m (£262m) quarterly loss.
JPMorgan is not the only bank to have faced soaring legal bills in the face of ongoing investigations into foreign exchange market manipulations.
In the third quarter last year, Royal Bank of Scotland set aside a total of £780m to cover legal and conduct costs, while Citigroup upped its legal spend by around $600m (£376m) and Barclays took £500m out of its third quarter profits to cover potential currency market rigging fines.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'I Won’t Name the Firm, But...'—Barratt Redrow's Legal Head on External Counsel Red Flags
Setting Standards: Vanguard Australia's Sean Hughes on Moving From Government Regulator to Corporate General Counsel
6 minute readNetflix Offices Raided by Authorities in Paris and Amsterdam
Trending Stories
- 1The Rise of AI-Generated Deepfakes: A New Cybersecurity Threat for Law Firms
- 2Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
- 3Spoliation Sanctions
- 4At FDA, Flavored Vape Products Go Up In Smoke
- 5Arguing Class Actions: CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250