Amount awarded to other party, escrow

[Table of Contents](#iafeb83384c73449bb49e90c3c5b8201e_7)  


|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |
| Fifth Third Bancorp and SubsidiariesNotes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited) |

18. Legal and Regulatory Proceedings  
LitigationVisa/MasterCard Merchant Interchange LitigationIn April 2006, the Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa®, MasterCard® and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 17 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was initially approved by the trial court but reversed by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements noted above. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the “Amended Settlement Agreement”) resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs’ class (the “Plaintiff Damages Class”) and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, $700 million of the additional $900 million has been returned to the defendants due to the level of opt-outs from the class. The Bancorp’s allocated share of the settlement is within existing reserves, including funds maintained in escrow. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement, which is currently pending appeal. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs’ class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. On September 27, 2021, the Court entered an order certifying a class of merchants pursuing claims for injunctive relief. The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, remains uncertain. Refer to Note 17 for further information.  
Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third BankOn August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class action lawsuits were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the TILA. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs’ claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million, plus interest under Ohio law. On March 26, 2021, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court has set a trial date in April 2023.  
Helton v. Fifth Third BankOn August 31, 2015, trust beneficiaries filed an action against Fifth Third Bank, as trustee, in the Probate Court for Hamilton County, Ohio (Helen Clarke Helton, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, Case No. 2015003814). The plaintiffs alleged breach of the duty to diversify, breach of the duty of impartiality, breach of trust/fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, based on Fifth Third’s alleged failure to diversify assets held in two trusts for the plaintiffs’ benefit. The lawsuit sought over $800 million in alleged damages, attorneys’ fees, removal of Fifth Third as trustee, and injunctive relief. On April 20, 2018, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Fifth Third, dismissing the case in its entirety. On December 18, 2019, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the Probate Court’s dismissal of all of plaintiffs’ claims based upon allegations of Fifth Third’s alleged failure to diversify assets held in two trusts for plaintiffs’ benefit. The appeals court reversed summary judgment on one claim related to Fifth Third’s alleged unjust enrichment through its receipt of certain fees in managing the trusts. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Probate Court for further consideration of the lone surviving claim, which comprises a small fraction of the damages originally sought by plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision from the Ohio Court of Appeals. On April 14, 2020, the Ohio Supreme Court announced its denial of plaintiffs’ request for review, and subsequently denied plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration. Thereafter, the case returned to the trial court for further adjudication of the lone surviving claim. On July 28, 2021 the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment to Fifth 110
