For JPMorgan, sure. That missing evidence gets interpreted adversely against JPMorgan, which means those cases are basically won. The question is how many more will arise in the coming months, perhaps years, that find reasonable claim to damages arising out of evidence the defendant has conceded it can’t bring to its defense.
Will the interpretations of the missing evidence be worse or better for them, though? Seeing as it's JPM, it's very possible that whatever evidence was lost (lol) would be a lot more damaging than whatever the prosecutors will come up with.
