Company: FITBI
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0000035527-25-000137
Chunk: 271

Company: FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
Filing Date: 2025-05-06
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 271
---
orp and SubsidiariesNotes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)

After the Bancorp’s sale of the Class B Shares, Visa has funded additional amounts into the litigation escrow account which have resulted in further dilutive adjustments to the conversion of Class B Shares into Class A Shares, and along with other terms of the total return swap, required the Bancorp to make cash payments in varying amounts to the swap counterparty as follows:Period ($ in millions)VisaFunding AmountBancorp CashPayment AmountQ2 2010$500 20 Q4 2010800 35 Q2 2011400 19 Q1 20121,565 75 Q3 2012150 6 Q3 2014450 18 Q2 2018600 26 Q3 2019300 12 Q4 2021250 11 Q2 2022600 25 Q4 2022350 15 Q2 2023500 21 Q3 2023150 6 Q3 20241,500 65 Q1 2025375 (a)(a)The Bancorp made a cash payment of $15 million to the swap counterparty on April 8, 2025 as a result of the Visa escrow funding in the first quarter of 2025.

14.  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 13 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