JPMorgan balks at footing Charlie Javice’s legal bill
JPMorgan Chase has told courts it will not pay the legal defense bills for Charlie Javice, the founder of student-finance startup Frank, after accusing her of fabricating user data tied to the bank’s July 2021 acquisition of the company. The comments appear in recent court filings related to the bank’s civil suit against Javice, in which JPMorgan seeks to unwind the deal and recover damages tied to what it calls fraudulent representations.
Background: the Frank deal and the allegations
JPMorgan acquired Frank, a startup that helped students navigate financial aid forms, in July 2021 in a deal valued at up to $175 million. In April 2023 the bank sued Javice, alleging she had misrepresented Frank’s user base — claiming access to roughly 4.25 million student records when, JPMorgan says, that figure was substantially inflated. Around the same time, Javice was criminally charged in New York and has pleaded not guilty to the federal criminal counts. Javice has denied wrongdoing.
Since the allegations surfaced, the dispute has migrated from criminal court to a complex fight over contractual obligations in civil court: whether JPMorgan must indemnify Javice or use insurance to cover her defense costs. In court filings, the bank has argued that Javice’s alleged intentional misconduct places her outside the scope of any indemnity or insurance protections tied to the transaction.
Why JPMorgan won’t pay — legal and insurance mechanics
At the heart of JPMorgan’s stance are two standard M&A mechanisms: indemnification clauses in purchase agreements and directors-and-officers (D&O) insurance policies. Indemnities often require an acquirer to defend or cover certain claims against founders or former executives, but they commonly include a fraud exception — a carveout denying coverage when intentional misrepresentations are involved.
JPMorgan’s filings argue that Javice engaged in fraud, invoking those exceptions and denying any duty to advance legal fees. The bank has also raised questions about whether Frank’s D&O insurance can be tapped for Javice’s defense, noting that insurers similarly exclude coverage for intentional criminal acts and certain fraud-related claims.
Precedent and contractual nuance
Legal experts say disputes like this are not uncommon in high-profile startup exits. “Acquirers routinely include indemnity and clawback provisions to protect against misrepresentation,” said a former mergers-and-acquisitions attorney who asked not to be named. “When fraud is alleged, insurers and acquirers both dig into the wording: material misstatement, knowledge qualifiers, and the fraud carveouts determine who, if anyone, pays.”
Implications for founders, investors and M&A diligence
The Javice-JPMorgan fight highlights practical risks for founders, investors and acquirers. For founders, the stakes are clear: representations about user numbers, revenue and growth are under intense scrutiny and, if challenged, can leave them personally exposed. For acquirers and VC-backed startups, the case underscores the necessity of thorough diligence and clear contractual protections, including escrowed holdbacks and robust reps-and-warranties insurance.
For the insurance market, this is a reminder of the limits of D&O coverage. Insurers frequently exclude deliberate criminality and fraud; when those elements are in question, carriers can deny coverage, leaving defendants to argue the facts in parallel litigation about whether those exclusions apply.
Expert perspectives
Industry analysts note the reputational and operational fallout for both sides. A fintech M&A analyst observed that “battles over advancement and indemnity can be as consequential as the underlying fraud allegations — enforcement costs, drawn-out litigation and public scrutiny can all chill deal activity.” A legal practitioner specializing in securities litigation added that the outcome will hinge not only on the criminal case’s evidence but also on the precise contractual language JPMorgan and Frank agreed to in 2021.
What’s next
As the civil case proceeds, courts will have to parse contract language, insurance policy terms and the factual record. For Javice, an adjudication that she committed fraud could mean criminal penalties, the loss of any remaining consideration tied to the deal, and personal liability for costs. For JPMorgan, a protracted fight could be costly even if the bank ultimately prevails — in legal fees, management distraction and potential damage to its broader fintech strategy.
Related coverage to follow on our site: the original 2021 Frank acquisition, trends in reps-and-warranties insurance, and best practices for startup disclosure during M&A.
About the Author
