JPMorgan has been sued by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York for wrongdoing in connection with assignments of mortgage and the use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. It has also been operating under regulatory consent orders related to the mortgage industry's foreclosure settlement with federal regulators. But as the largest U.S. bank holding company operating in the post-crisis environment, following an industry bailout through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, it is to be expected that JPMorgan face its share of regulatory and legal hurdles. Does anyone really think the regulatory and political pressure on the company would ease of Dimon were to leave? State attorneys general have nothing to lose and everything to gain, whenever they hold press conferences bashing the big banks. That will continue, as long as possible, whether or not Dimon is at the helm of JPMorgan Chase.
The media has given plenty of clout to proxy advisory firms like Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, who have both advised shareholders to vote to split JPMorgan's CEO and chairman roles. Those firms have conveniently jumped on the anti-Dimon bandwagon, saying that having a chairman to watch over a CEO would equal better corporate governance.