JPMorgan Chase is pushing back against a court order requiring the bank to cover a staggering $142 million in legal fees tied to the defense of Charlie Javice and Olivier Amar the founder and former chief marketing officer of the financial aid startup Frank.
The dispute marks the latest chapter in a high-profile saga that began when JPMorgan acquired Frank for $175 million in 2021, only to later accuse its executives of massive fraud.
Earlier this year, Javice and Amar were found guilty of inflating Frank’s true customer count before the acquisition, misleading JPMorgan into believing the platform had 4.25 million users when in reality, the number was drastically smaller. Javice has since been sentenced to seven years in prison, while Amar was found culpable for his role in the deception.
Now, JPMorgan is fighting a previous legal ruling that obligates the bank to pay the pair’s mounting legal expenses. The bank’s attorneys argue that many of the billed items are not only excessive but blatantly abusive.
According to JPMorgan lawyer Michael Pittinger, Javice’s team billed the bank for luxury hotel upgrades, implausible time entries including 24 hours of work in a single day and even personal products such as “cellulite butter,” a cosmetic moisturizer.
“There’s never been a case, to my knowledge, with such extreme abuses,” Pittinger stated, highlighting what the bank views as a pattern of inflated and inappropriate charges.
However, Javice’s representatives have pushed back on the allegations. A spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that Javice “abided by JPMorgan policies” and did not personally oversee or approve the disputed expenses. They argued that, as an employee at the time, she made only modest purchases such as ice cream that were allowed under corporate guidelines, and never sought reimbursement for prohibited items.
The legal battle now centers on whether JPMorgan is contractually obligated to cover the accused executives’ defense costs despite the fraud conviction. The outcome could set an important precedent for how far corporate indemnification agreements extend when employee misconduct is involved.
As both sides continue their fight, the case underscores the financial, ethical, and procedural complexities that arise when major acquisitions unravel into criminal accusations.
