JPMorgan Chase is using its checkbook to try to mend frayed relationships with the government, Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess report in DealBook. But the new and conciliatory approach is yielding mixed results. “Government officials, stung by the bank’s past displays of hubris, may drive up the price of settlements or resist the overtures altogether.” On Tuesday, JPMorgan struck a $410 million settlement with the nation’s top energy regulator, which had accused the bank of devising “manipulative schemes” to transform “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers.” It was a record fine for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. JPMorgan is bracing for an even larger penalty related to shoddy mortgage securities it sold to the government, DealBook reports. “The bank’s new approach comes down, at least in part, to dollars and cents. While the settlements are expensive, they pale in comparison to the sort of legal bills that come with long — and embarrassing — legal battles. The conciliatory tack also reflects a growing recognition among bank executives that JPMorgan was swiftly losing credibility in Washington. At least eight federal agencies are investigating the bank, and some regulators have portrayed JPMorgan as something of a bully.”

FEWER BARBARIANS AT THE GATE | “The hostile takeover is on life support, if it’s not dead altogether,” Steven M. Davidoff writes in the Deal Professor column. “This year, there have been a grand total of three hostile offers, according to FactSet MergerMetrics. Two of the three were for small companies worth less $25 million. Last year, there were only 12 hostile bids, FactSet reported. These days, the directors of the 5,000 or so public companies have a better chance of being hurt in a car accident than by a hostile bidder.” So how has the market changed since the 1980s, when corporate raiders bestrode the landscape? “Simply put, the forces on companies to perform better appear to have worked, leaving fewer undervalued targets for hostile bidders,” Mr. Davidoff writes. “Hostile takeovers have also become riskier. Not only boards, but shareholders at target companies are much more willing to say no if they feel a bid is underpriced.” Still, this development raises a new concern: that the disciplining effect of a hostile takeover threat will disappear.

TOURRE CASE GOES TO JURY |

Lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission and for Fabrice P. Tourre, the former Goldman Sachs trader, have made their last attempts to influence a nine-member jury, which is set to receive instructions from the judge on Wednesday. Mr. Tourre “was either a greedy scheming liar or a bright young executive just trying to do his job, according to dueling portraits presented during closing arguments Tuesday,” Susanne Craig and Michael J. de la Merced write in DealBook. Matthew Martens, the S.E.C.’s lead lawyer, was the first to present his closing remarks and had the last word with jurors. “When it came to lies from the witness stand, Mr. Tourre took the cake,” he told jurors. Sean Coffey, a lawyer for Mr. Tourre, accused the S.E.C. of peddling “half truths” and “deceit.” He said, “The idea that Fabrice Tourre, a 28-year-old vice president, was conjuring up a $1 billion fraud, or conspiring with others, is just not supported by the evidence.”

ON THE AGENDA |

An estimate of gross domestic product in the second quarter is released at 8:30 a.m. The Federal Reserve’s policy making committee makes an announcement at 2 p.m. Hess and Hyatt Hotels report earnings before the market opens. MetLife and Yelp report earnings this evening. Jan Hatzius, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist, is on Bloomberg TV at 11:30 a.m.