There’s a new twist in the ongoing drama between Charlie Javice, the founder of the embattled student-aid startup Frank, and financial behemoth JPMorgan Chase.

For those catching up, Javice finds herself amid a legal whirlwind after JPMorgan alleged she and her colleague, Olivier Amar, manufactured profiles for a staggering number of Frank’s users. Subsequently, Javice encountered criminal charges—charges stemming from a lawsuit initiated by the very bank that had promised $175 million to acquire her startup.

Now, here’s where things get particularly thorny: Despite the allegations and ongoing litigation, a Delaware court asserted that JPMorgan must stick to its earlier commitment. The bank, per their acquisition agreement, is expected to front Javice’s rising legal fees.

Public filings have illuminated the situation further. Javice’s powerhouse legal representation—namely, the elite firms of Abrams & Bayliss and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—claim that JPMorgan is stalling on the payments. Their words cut sharp: “JPMorgan continues its campaign to hobble Javice’s defense by refusing to advance reasonable defense costs.” The bone of contention? The bank’s alleged attempt to weave in bureaucratic “red tape” was absent from the court’s directive.

By the numbers, Javice’s lawyers state that the bank owes north of $835,000, which translates to roughly 22% of the entire billing amount. Do the math, and you find the total billing scale touching a staggering $3.8 million.

While such a hefty fee might seem audacious to some, it’s not uncommon in high-stakes cases. Top-tier law firms, equipped with seasoned lawyers, often command hourly rates soaring above $2,000. This mounting bill, one can speculate, doesn’t sit well with JPMorgan’s ledger.

Delving deeper into the specifics, Michael Barlow, representing Javice, shed light on the billing breakdown. The charged fees envelop JPMorgan’s internal probing, federal civil suits from the bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Javice’s criminal proceedings, and the lawsuit itself.

But what does JPMorgan have to say about all this? Javice’s legal team has bucketed the bank’s reservations into four categories. The majority revolve around the bank disputing its responsibility for certain legal expenses. A smaller segment pertains to charges the bank finds ambiguously defined or potentially “suspicious.”

In the grand scheme of startup acquisitions and Wall Street dealings, this saga underscores the intricate dance of agreements, obligations, and, sometimes, litigations. It remains to be seen how the scales will tip, but one thing’s for certain: the entrepreneurial and investment world will be watching closely.