| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Investment Commitments— As a limited partner, general partner and manager of the Apollo funds, Apollo had unfunded capital commitments as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of $548.3 million and $566.3 million , respectively. Apollo has an ongoing obligation to acquire additional common units of AAA in an amount equal to 25% of the aggregate after-tax cash distributions, if any, that are made by AAA to the Company pursuant to the carried interest distribution rights that are applicable to investments made through AAA Investments. In addition, on April 30, 2015, Apollo entered into a revolving credit agreement with AAA Investments (“AAA Investments Credit Agreement”). Under the terms of the AAA Investments Credit Agreement, the Company shall make available to AAA Investments one or more advances at the discretion of AAA Investments in the aggregate amount not to exceed a balance of $10.0 million at an applicable rate of LIBOR plus 1.5% . The Company receives an annual commitment fee of 0.125% on the unused portion of the loan. As of September 30, 2016 , no advance on the AAA Investments Credit Agreement had been made by the Company. Debt Covenants— Apollo’s debt obligations contain various customary loan covenants. As of September 30, 2016 , the Company was not aware of any instances of non-compliance with the financial covenants contained in the documents governing the Company’s debt obligations. Litigation and Contingencies— Apollo is, from time to time, party to various legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business including claims and lawsuits, reviews, investigations or proceedings by governmental and self regulatory agencies regarding its business. Various state attorneys general and federal and state agencies have initiated industry-wide investigations into the use of placement agents in connection with the solicitation of investments, particularly with respect to investments by public pension funds. Certain affiliates of Apollo have received subpoenas and other requests for information from various government regulatory agencies and investors in Apollo’s funds, seeking information regarding the use of placement agents. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”), one of Apollo’s Strategic Investors, announced on October 14, 2009, that it had initiated a special review of placement agents and related issues. The report of the CalPERS’ Special Review was issued on March 14, 2011. That report does not allege any wrongdoing on the part of Apollo or its affiliates. Apollo is continuing to cooperate with all such investigations and other reviews. In addition, on May 6, 2010, the California Attorney General filed a civil complaint against Alfred Villalobos and his company, Arvco Capital Research, LLC (“Arvco”) (a placement agent that Apollo has used) and Federico Buenrostro Jr., the former CEO of CalPERS, alleging conduct in violation of certain California laws in connection with CalPERS’s purchase of securities in various funds managed by Apollo and another asset manager. Apollo is not a party to the civil lawsuit and the lawsuit does not allege any misconduct on the part of Apollo. Likewise, on April 23, 2012, the SEC filed a lawsuit alleging securities fraud on the part of Arvco, as well as Messrs. Buenrostro and Villalobos, in connection with their activities concerning certain CalPERS investments in funds managed by Apollo. This lawsuit also does not allege wrongdoing on the part of Apollo, and alleges that Apollo was defrauded by Arvco, Villalobos, and Buenrostro. On March 14, 2013, the United States Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against Messrs. Villalobos and Buenrostro alleging, among other crimes, fraud in connection with those same activities; again, Apollo is not accused of any wrongdoing and in fact is alleged to have been defrauded by the defendants. The criminal action was set for trial in a San Francisco federal court in July 2014, but was put on hold after Mr. Buenrostro pleaded guilty on July 11, 2014. As part of Mr. Buenrostro’s plea agreement, he admitted to taking cash and other bribes from Mr. Villalobos in exchange for several improprieties, including attempting to influence CalPERS’ investing decisions and improperly preparing disclosure letters to satisfy Apollo’s requirements. There is no suggestion that Apollo was aware that Mr. Buenrostro had signed the letters with a corrupt motive. The government has indicated that they will file new charges against Mr. Villalobos incorporating Mr. Buenrostro’s admissions. On August 7, 2014, the government filed a superseding indictment against Mr. Villalobos asserting additional charges. Trial had been scheduled for February 23, 2015, but Mr. Villalobos passed away on January 13, 2015. Additionally, on April 15, 2013, Mr. Villalobos, Arvco and related entities (the “Arvco Debtors”) brought a civil action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (the “Bankruptcy Court”) against Apollo. The action is related to the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of the Arvco Debtors. This action alleges that Arvco served as a placement agent for Apollo in connection with several funds associated with Apollo, and seeks to recover purported fees the Arvco Debtors claim Apollo has not paid them for a portion of Arvco’s placement agent services. In addition, the Arvco Debtors allege that Apollo has interfered with the Arvco Debtors’ commercial relationships with third parties, purportedly causing the Arvco Debtors to lose business and to incur fees and expenses in the defense of various investigations and litigations. The Arvco Debtors also seek compensation from Apollo for these alleged lost profits and fees and expenses. The Arvco Debtors’ complaint asserts various theories of recovery under the Bankruptcy Code and common law. Apollo denies the merit of all of the Arvco Debtors’ claims and will vigorously contest them. The Bankruptcy Court had stayed this action pending the result in the criminal case against Mr. Villalobos but lifted the stay on May 1, 2015; in light of Mr. Villalobos’s death, the criminal case was dismissed. On August 25, 2016, Christina Lovato, in her capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Arvco Debtors, filed an amended complaint. No estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On June 18, 2014, BOKF N.A. (the “First Lien Trustee”), the successor indenture trustee under the indenture governing the First Lien Notes issued by Momentive Performance Materials, Inc. (“Momentive”), commenced a lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County against AGM and members of an ad hoc group of Second Lien Noteholders (including, but not limited to, Euro VI (BC) S.a.r.l.). The First Lien Trustee amended its complaint on July 2, 2014 (the “First Lien Intercreditor Action”). In the First Lien Intercreditor Action, the First Lien Trustee seeks, among other things, a declaration that the defendants violated an intercreditor agreement entered into between holders of the First Lien Notes and holders of the second lien notes. On July 16, 2014, the successor indenture trustee under the indenture governing the 1.5 Lien Notes (the “1.5 Lien Trustee,” and, together with the First Lien Trustee, the “Indenture Trustees”) filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County that is substantially similar to the First Lien Intercreditor Action (the “1.5 Lien Intercreditor Action,” and, together with the First Lien Intercreditor Action, the “Intercreditor Actions”). AGM subsequently removed the Intercreditor Actions to federal district court, and the Intercreditor Actions were automatically referred to the Bankruptcy Court adjudicating the Momentive chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The Indenture Trustees then filed motions with the Bankruptcy Court to remand the Intercreditor Actions back to the state court (the “Remand Motions”). On September 9, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Remand Motions. On August 15, 2014, the defendants in the Intercreditor Actions (including AGM) filed a motion to dismiss the 1.5 Lien Intercreditor Action and a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the First Lien Intercreditor Action (the “Dismissal Motions”). On September 30, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Dismissal Motions. In its order granting the Dismissal Motions, the Bankruptcy Court gave the Indenture Trustees until mid-November 2014 to move to amend some, but not all, of the claims alleged in their respective complaints. On November 14, 2014, the Indenture Trustees moved to amend their respective complaints pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court’s order (the “Motions to Amend”). On January 9, 2015, the defendants filed their oppositions to the Motions to Amend. On January 16, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Motions to Amend (the “Dismissal Order”), but gave the Indenture Trustees until March 2, 2015 to seek to amend their respective complaints. On March 2, 2015, the First Lien Trustee filed a motion seeking to amend its complaint. On April 10, 2015, the defendants, including AGM and Euro VI (BC) S.a.r.l., filed an opposition to the First Lien Trustee’s motion to amend. Instead of moving again to amend its complaint, the 1.5 Lien Trustee chose to appeal the Dismissal Order (the “1.5 Lien Appeal”). On March 30, 2015, the 1.5 Lien Trustee filed its Statement of Issues and Designation of Record on Appeal. On March 31, 2015, because the legal issues presented in the 1.5 Lien Appeal are substantially similar to those presented in the First Lien Intercreditor Action, the parties in the 1.5 Lien Appeal submitted a joint stipulation and proposed order to the District Court staying the briefing schedule on the 1.5 Lien Appeal pending the outcome of the First Lien Trustee’s most recent motion to amend. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed their Counter-Designation of the Record on Appeal in the 1.5 Lien Appeal. On May 8, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion to amend filed on March 2, 2015 by the First Lien Trustee. On May 27, 2015, the First Lien Trustee filed a notice of appeal from the orders of the Bankruptcy Court dismissing the First Lien Intercreditor Action and denying the First Lien Trustee’s motions to amend (the “First Lien Appeal”). On June 2, 2015, the First Lien Trustee filed its Statement of Issues and Designation of Record on Appeal. On June 24, 2015, the defendants filed their Counter-Designation of the Record on Appeal in the First Lien Appeal. On July 31, 2015, the 1.5 Lien Trustee sent a letter to the federal district court hearing the 1.5 Lien Appeal asking the court to consolidate the 1.5 Lien Appeal with the First Lien Appeal which had been assigned to a different judge (the “Consolidation Request”). On April 8, 2016, the court granted the Consolidation Request. On May 20, 2016, the Indenture Trustees filed their opening appellate brief. The Appellees filed their response brief on July 14, 2016, and the Indenture Trustees filed their reply brief on August 5, 2016. The court has not yet set a date for oral argument. Apollo is unable at this time to assess a potential risk of loss. In addition, Apollo does not believe that AGM is a proper defendant in these actions. There are several pending actions concerning transactions related to Caesars Entertainment Corporation (“Caesars Entertainment”), Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. (“CEOC”), and certain of its subsidiaries. A. In re: Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc. bankruptcy proceedings, No. 15-10047 (Del. Bankr.) (the “Delaware Bankruptcy Action”) and No. 15-01145 (N.D. Ill. Bankr.) (the “Illinois Bankruptcy Action”). On January 12, 2015, three holders of CEOC second lien notes filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against CEOC in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Involuntary Petition”). On January 15, 2015, CEOC and certain of its affiliates (collectively the “Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois. On February 2, 2015, the court in the Delaware Bankruptcy Action ordered that all bankruptcy proceedings relating to the Debtors should take place in the Illinois Bankruptcy Action. The Bankruptcy Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Debtors’ petition date was January 12, 2015 or January 15, 2015; this motion has not yet been ruled on by the Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to the Plan the Involuntary Petition will be dismissed as moot. Certain of the Debtors’ creditors have indicated in filings with the Bankruptcy Court that an investigation into certain acts and transactions that predated the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing could lead to claims against a number of parties, including Apollo. To date, no such claims have been brought by the Debtors’ prepetition creditors against Apollo. On May 13, 2016, the Official Committee of Second Priority Noteholders (the “Second Lien Noteholders Committee”) filed a motion seeking an Order granting it standing to commence, prosecute and settle claims on behalf of the Debtors’ estates (the “Standing Motion”). The proposed complaint filed with the Standing Motion names Apollo and many others as defendants (see also “H” below). On or about September 27, 2016, Caesars Entertainment and the Debtors announced that they had received confirmations from representatives of the Debtors’ major creditor groups of those groups’ support for a term sheet that describes the key economic terms of a proposed consensual chapter 11 plan for the Debtors. On October 4, 2016, the Debtors filed the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). As part of the Plan, and in connection with the merger between Caesars Entertainment and Caesars Acquisition Company (“CAC”), funds managed by Apollo will not retain any of their equity interests in the merged Caesars Entertainment on account of their pre-merger Caesars Entertainment shares. Such equity interests would, instead, be for the benefit of CEOC’s creditors. Funds managed by Apollo will, however, retain their equity interests in the merged Caesars Entertainment on account of their CAC shares. The voting deadline on the Plan is November 21, 2016, and the hearing on whether to confirm the Plan is scheduled to begin on January 17, 2017. On October 17, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors’ requested injunction of the WSFS, Trilogy, Danner, UMB, Wilmington Trust and BOKF Actions (defined below “B”, “C”, “D”, “F” and “G”) through Plan confirmation. Caesars Entertainment and the Debtors are hopeful that there will be confirmation and effectiveness of the Plan in 2017. If the Plan is confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and becomes effective, it would provide several parties, including, AGM and certain associated entities and individuals (collectively, the "Apollo Released Parties") with a release of claims that the Debtors and the Debtors’ creditors have or may have against the Apollo Released Parties, including those described below in the WSFS Action, the Trilogy Action, the Danner Action, the UMB Action, the BOKF Action, the Wilmington Trust Action and the CEOC Action. B. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Caesars Entertainment Corp. et al., No. 10004-CVG (Del. Ch.) (the “WSFS Action”). On August 4, 2014, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (“WSFS”), as trustee for certain CEOC second-lien notes, sued Caesars Entertainment, CEOC, other Caesars Entertainment-affiliated entities, and certain of Caesars Entertainment’s directors, including Marc Rowan, Eric Press, David Sambur (each an Apollo Partner) and Jeff Benjamin (a consultant to Apollo), in Delaware’s Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”). WSFS (i) asserts claims (against some or all of the defendants) for fraudulent conveyance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, corporate waste, and aiding and abetting related to certain transactions among CEOC and other Caesars Entertainment affiliates, and (ii) requests (among other things) that the court unwind the challenged transactions and award damages. WSFS served a subpoena for documents on Apollo on September 11, 2014, but Apollo’s response was stayed during the pendency of motions to dismiss under a September 23, 2014 stipulated order. On March 18, 2015, the Delaware Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Apollo served responses and objections to WSFS’ subpoena on March 25, 2015. Caesars Entertainment answered the complaint on April 1, 2015. During the pendency of CEOC’s bankruptcy proceedings, the WSFS Action has been automatically stayed with respect to CEOC. WSFS additionally advised the Bankruptcy Court that, during CEOC’s bankruptcy proceedings, WSFS would only pursue claims in the WSFS Action relating to whether Caesars Entertainment remains liable on a guarantee of certain of CEOC’s second priority notes. On July 17, 2015, WSFS served supplemental subpoenas to several entities affiliated with Apollo. Apollo has substantially completed its production of non-privileged documents responsive to those subpoenas. On March 11, 2016, WSFS filed a motion for partial summary judgment (the “Summary Judgment Motion”) on its breach of contract claim against Caesars Entertainment. On April 25, 2016, Caesars Entertainment filed a joint Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and answering brief in opposition to WSFS’ Summary Judgment Motion (the “Cross-Motion”). WSFS filed its joint reply and opposition to Caesars Entertainment’s Cross-Motion on May 25, 2016, and Caesars Entertainment filed a reply to WSFS’ opposition on June 9, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code enjoining the plaintiffs in the WSFS Action from prosecuting actions against Caesars Entertainment until August 29, 2016. On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors’ renewed injunction request, staying the WSFS Action through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the WSFS Action. C. Trilogy Portfolio Company, L.L.C., et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Trilogy Action”). On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) violations, and a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014 private financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment, and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to terminate Caesars Entertainment’s guarantee of the notes and modify certain restrictions on CEOC’s ability to sell assets. Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the New York Court granted the motion with respect to a TIA claim by Trilogy but otherwise denied the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, and Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015. On October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Danner Action”), against Caesars Entertainment alleging claims similar to those in the Trilogy Action. On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Caesars Entertainment answered the amended complaint on February 25, 2015. In March 2015, each of Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for documents on Apollo. Apollo produced responsive, non-privileged documents in response to those subpoenas. In July 2015, Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for depositions on Apollo and those depositions were completed on September 22, 2015. On October 23, 2015, Trilogy and Danner filed motions for partial summary judgment, related to TIA and breach of contract claims. On December 29, 2015, the New York Court denied the motions for partial summary judgment. On March 23, 2016, the judge presiding over the Trilogy and Danner Actions announced that she was retiring from the bench effective April 28, 2016. A new judge was assigned to preside over the Trilogy and Danner Actions (in addition to the BOKF, UMB SDNY, and Wilmington Trust Actions, defined below). On April 6, 2016, the parties agreed to a renewed summary judgment schedule for the Trilogy, Danner, BOKF, UMB SDNY (as defined below) and Wilmington Trust Actions. The moving parties submitted their briefs to the New York Court on May 10, 2016. Opposition briefs were filed on May 31, 2016. Reply briefs were filed on June 14, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the plaintiffs in the Trilogy and Danner Actions from prosecuting actions against Caesars Entertainment until August 29, 2016. On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors’ renewed injunction request, staying the Trilogy and Danner Actions through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the Trilogy and Danner Actions. D. UMB Bank v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, et al., No. 10393 (Del. Ch.) (the “UMB Action”). On November 25, 2014, UMB Bank, as trustee for certain CEOC notes, sued Caesars Entertainment, CEOC, other Caesars Entertainment-affiliated entities, and certain of Caesars Entertainment’s directors, including Marc Rowan, Eric Press, David Sambur (each an Apollo Partner) and Jeffrey Benjamin (an Apollo consultant), in the Delaware Court. The UMB Action alleges claims for actual and constructive fraudulent conveyance and transfer, insider preferences, illegal dividends, breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, usurpation of corporate opportunities, and unjust enrichment. The UMB Action seeks appointment of a receiver for CEOC, a constructive trust, and other relief. The UMB Action has been assigned to the same judge overseeing the WSFS Action. The UMB Action has effectively been stayed since April 7, 2016, and on October 17, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court stayed the UMB Action through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the UMB Action. E. Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C (Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the “Koskie Action”). On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class action on behalf of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company (“CAC”) against CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC’s Board of Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an Apollo partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC and Caesars Entertainment’s plan to merge, alleging that the proposed transaction will not give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the director defendants’ interrelationships with the entities involved the proposed transaction. The deadline for CAC to respond to this lawsuit has been adjourned indefinitely by agreement of the parties. F. BOKF, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, No. 15-156 (S.D.N.Y) (the “BOKF Action”). On March 3, 2015, BOKF, N.A., as trustee for certain CEOC notes, sued Caesars Entertainment in the New York Court. The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations and a declaratory judgment, and seeks to enforce Caesars Entertainment’s guarantee of certain CEOC notes. The BOKF Action has been assigned to the same judge in the New York Court as the Trilogy and Danner Actions. On March 25, 2015, Caesars Entertainment filed an answer to the complaint. On May 19, 2015, BOKF sent the court a letter requesting permission to file a partial summary judgment motion on Counts II and V of its complaint, related to the validity and enforceability of Caesars Entertainment’s guarantee of certain notes issued by CEOC and alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 76aaa, et seq. The Trilogy and Danner plaintiffs did not join BOKF’s request to file for partial summary judgment. On May 28, 2015, the court granted BOKF permission to move for partial summary judgment. On June 15, 2015, another related complaint captioned UMB Bank, N.A. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 15-cv-4634 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “UMB SDNY Action”) was filed by UMB Bank, N.A., solely in its capacity as Indenture Trustee of certain first lien notes (“UMB”), against Caesars Entertainment alleging claims similar to those alleged in the BOKF, Trilogy and Danner Actions. On June 16, 2015, UMB sent a letter to the court requesting permission to file a partial summary judgment motion on the same schedule with BOKF. On June 26, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed partial summary judgment motions (the “Partial Summary Judgment Motions”). On July 24, 2015, Caesars Entertainment filed its opposition to the Partial Summary Judgment Motions, and on August 7, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed reply briefs in further support of the Partial Summary Judgment Motions. On August 27, 2015, the Court denied the Partial Summary Judgment Motions and certified its opinion for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 22, 2015, the Second Circuit declined to hear the interlocutory appeal. Separately, on November 20, 2015, BOKF and UMB filed a second set of motions for partial summary judgment, on the issue of the disputed contract interpretation related to indenture release provisions. On January 5, 2016 the District Court denied these motions. At a hearing on February 22, 2016, the Court bifurcated the trial in the BOKF and UMB SDNY Actions and scheduled the trial on the breach of contract and TIA claims to begin on March 14, 2016. The Court ordered a separate trial on the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract to begin at a later date to be determined. On February 26, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the stay request as to the BOKF Action until May 9, 2016, resulting in a stay of the trial on the breach of contract and TIA claims in the BOKF and UMB SDNY Actions. On February 24, 2016, Caesars Entertainment filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dispose of the claims for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing brought by BOKF and UMB, and (2) intentional interference with contractual relations brought by BOKF. The moving parties submitted their briefs on May 10, 2016. Opposition briefs were filed on May 31, 2016. Reply briefs were filed on June 14, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the plaintiffs in the BOKF Action from prosecuting actions against Caesars Entertainment until August 29, 2016. On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors’ renewed injunction request, staying the BOKF Action through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the BOKF Action. G. Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation, No. 15-cv-08280 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Wilmington Trust Action”). On October 20, 2015, Wilmington Trust, N.A., solely in its capacity as Indenture Trustee for the 10.75% Notes due 2016 (“Wilmington Trust”), sued Caesars Entertainment in the New York Court alleging claims similar to those alleged in the BOKF, UMB, Trilogy, and Danner Actions. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the same schedule as the Trilogy Action. Caesars Entertainment argues that its actions did not violate the TIA and that its guarantee of the 10.75% Notes was automatically released under a certain clause contained in the indenture governing the 10.75% Notes. Wilmington Trust has argued that Caesars Entertainment’s actions constituted an improper out-of-court reorganization under the TIA and that Caesars Entertainment’s guarantee was not released because the necessary conditions precedent did not occur. Although the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court did not apply to the Wilmington Trust Action, on July 6, 2016, Wilmington Trust and Caesars Entertainment filed a stipulation staying the Wilmington Trust Action until August 29, 2016. The New York Court scheduled oral argument for August 30, 2016. A motion was made by CEOC and the other Debtors to the Bankruptcy Court to extend the stay beyond August 29, 2016, which motion was denied. On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors’ renewed injunction request, staying the Wilmington Trust Action through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the Wilmington Trust Action. H. CEOC v. Caesars Entertainment et al., Illinois Bankruptcy Court (the “CEOC Action”). On or about August 9, 2016, CEOC and certain of the other Debtors commenced a “placeholder” lawsuit against Caesars Entertainment, Apollo Global Management, LLC, Caesars Entertainment directors (including Messrs. Rowan, Sambur, Press and Benjamin) and certain of its officers, and many others to, inter alia, prevent the statute of limitations from running respecting any claims owned by a Debtor’s estate. This lawsuit basically asserts the claims identified in the Examiner’s Report and has been stayed by an order of the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the CEOC Actions. Apollo believes that the claims in the WSFS Action, the UMB Action, the Trilogy Action, the Danner Action, the Koskie Action, the BOKF Action, the UMB SDNY Action, the Wilmington Trust Action and the CEOC Action are without merit. For this reason, and because of pending bankruptcy proceedings involving CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. The Bankruptcy Court administering the CEOC bankruptcy proceedings appointed an examiner (the “Examiner”) to report on certain transactions engaged in by CEOC and certain of its subsidiaries. The Examiner issued his report on March 16, 2016. The Examiner’s report states that potential claims may exist against “Apollo” and persons affiliated with it relating to certain transactions that occurred in the years preceding CEOC’s bankruptcy filing, principally relating to Bankruptcy Code fraudulent conveyance claims as well as aiding and abetting claims. Apollo and persons affiliated with it deny any wrongdoing and deny any liability in connection with such transactions, and if any new claim is asserted against any of them, such claim will be vigorously contested. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. (“CEC”) had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the “Merger Agreement”), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the “Coyne Action”). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the “Solak Action”). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as |
