| 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 March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 of $1.6 billion and $1.7 billion , respectively, of which $823 million related to Fund IX as of March 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 . Debt Covenants— Apollo’s debt obligations contain various customary loan covenants. As of March 31, 2018 , 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. Guarantees— Apollo entered into an agreement to guarantee 20% of a consolidated VIE’s outstanding secured borrowings of $109.4 million with a third party lending institution. The amount guaranteed by Apollo as of March 31, 2018 was $21.9 million . On December 21, 2017, an investor group led by Apollo and certain other investors entered into an agreement (the “Venerable Transaction”) to acquire Voya Financial, Inc.’s (“Voya”) Closed Block Variable Annuity business (the “CBVA Business”). The investment will be made through an investment company into a newly formed standalone entity (“Venerable Holdings, Inc.” or “Venerable”) which will hold the underlying CBVA Business. The proposed transaction, which is expected to close during 2018, is subject to regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. Each of the investors will acquire minority positions in Venerable. In connection with the Venerable Transaction, the Company provided a limited guarantee, applicable only in the event the deal is terminated under certain circumstances. Maximum exposure under this guarantee is $30.9 million . As of March 31, 2018 , there is no liability recorded on the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition as the Company has deemed payment on this guarantee as not probable. 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. CalPERS 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. On March 20, 2017, the court granted Apollo’s motion to dismiss the equitable claims asserted in the amended complaint, leaving just two breach of contract claims remaining. On October 20, 2017, Apollo moved for summary judgment as to the trustee’s remaining claims and a counterclaim by Apollo that seeks indemnification for attorneys’ fees and expenses. 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. On October 2, 2017, the court stayed the Intercreditor Actions pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an appeal concerning the Momentive chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. On October 20, 2017, the Second Circuit issued its ruling in the appeal concerning the Momentive chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. As a result, the court has lifted the stay on the Intercreditor Actions, but no further proceedings have been held in the Intercreditor Actions. 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. 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 defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the “Dixon Action”). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the “LMPERS Action”) (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the “Shareholder Actions”). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC’s stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys’ and experts’ fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in limited discovery. On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (“Goldman Sachs”) as a defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC’s former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC’s stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who also served as the senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board’s breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 1, 2017, the special master appointed by the Kansas court to oversee pre-trial proceedings recommended that the Kansas court grant defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. On March 30, 2017, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the consolidated complaint. The proposed amended consolidated complaint does not name as defendants CEC or its former directors, and purports to substitute Goldman, Sachs & Co. in place of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. on the claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On June 1, 2017, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all claims against CEC and the former directors, and dismissed the former CEC directors from the action. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes that such action is without merit. On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (“SFM”), several SFM directors (including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the “AP Entities”), which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015 secondary offering. The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a materially misleading registration statement for the secondary offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM’s 2014 annual report regarding SFM’s business prospects, and failed to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action against the AP Entities for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, seeking compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM’s stock price. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, and the court dismissed the Section 11 claim against the AP Entities but not the Section 15 claim. Discovery is ongoing. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On June 20, 2016 Banca Carige S.p.A. (“Carige”) commenced a lawsuit in the Court of Genoa (Italy) (No. 8965/2016), against its former Chairman, its former Chief Executive Officer, AGM and certain entities (the “Apollo Entities”) organized and owned by investment funds managed by affiliates of AGM. The complaint alleges that AGM and the Apollo Entities (i) aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty to Carige allegedly committed by Carige’s former Chairman and former CEO in connection with the sale to the Apollo Entities of Carige subsidiaries engaged in the insurance business; and (ii) took wrongful actions aimed at weakening Banca Carige’s financial condition supposedly to facilitate an eventual acquisition of Carige. The causes of action are based in tort under Italian law. Carige purportedly seeks damages of €450 million in connection with the sale of the insurance businesses and €800 million for other losses. Hearings were held on May 17, 2017, on June 14, 2017, on November 7, 2017 and on January 18, 2018. After the Court’s decision dated December 6, 2017, that the case can be decided without further evidence, the parties filed their final two briefs on March 19, 2018 and April 9, 2018, respectively. Based on the allegations made by the plaintiff during the proceedings, Apollo believes that there is no merit to Carige’s claims. Additionally, although the case appears to be in its final stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. On December 12, 2016, the CORE Litigation Trust (the “Trust”), which was created under the Chapter 11 reorganization plan for CORE Media and other affiliated entities, including CORE Entertainment, Inc. (“CORE”), approved by the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court on September 22, 2016, commenced an action in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, captioned Core Litigation Trust v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, et al., Case No. BC 643732, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 3, 2017. On April 5, 2017, the C.D. Cal. District Court granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) and denied the Trust’s motion to remand the action to California state court, without prejudice to the Trust refiling its remand motion in the SDNY. On April 20, 2017, the SDNY District Court referred the case to the SDNY Bankruptcy Court. On July 17, 2017, the SDNY Bankruptcy Court granted the Trust’s motion for mandatory abstention and remanded the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. On October 3, 2017, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings in the California state court action on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of litigating the case in New York state court. On November 9, 2017, the Trust filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County, commencing an action captioned Core Litigation Trust v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, et al., Index No. 656856/2017. On January 16, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Trust’s opposition to the motions to dismiss is due February 14, 2018, and defendants’ replies are due March 8, 2018. The complaint names as defendants: (i) AGM, (ii) Apollo Global Securities, LLC, (iii) other AGM subsidiaries, (iv) the funds managed by Apollo that were the beneficial owners of CORE Media (the “CORE Funds”), (v) certain affiliated-entities through which the CORE Funds owned their beneficial interest in CORE Media, (vi) Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. (“Fox”) and certain Fox affiliates, (vii) Endemol USA Holding, Inc. (“Endemol”) and certain Endemol-affiliated entities, and (viii) the joint venture through which the CORE Funds and Fox beneficially owned CORE Media and Endemol Shine. The Trust’s complaint asserts against all defendants claims for inducing the breach of and tortiously interfering with $360 million in loans under the 2011 loan agreements entered into between CORE and certain First and Second Lien Lenders (the “Lenders”), who assigned their loan-agreement claims to the Trust as part of CORE’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Trust alleges that defendants’ participation in certain transactions related to CORE, including the December 12, 2014 formation of the joint venture through which the CORE Funds and Fox beneficially owned CORE Media and Endemol Shine, induced CORE to breach the loan agreements and tortiously interfered with CORE’s performance of its obligations under the loan agreements. The Trust also asserts alter-ego and de-facto-merger claims seeking to hold certain defendants liable for the guarantee provided by CORE Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (CORE’s parent holding company) of CORE's repayment obligations under the loans’ repayment. The Trust seeks $240 million in compensatory, unspecified punitive damages, pre-judgment interests, and costs and expenses. On January 16, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. The Trust opposed the motions to dismiss on February 16, 2018. Defendants filed their replies on March 12, 2018. The court has scheduled oral argument on defendants’ motions for May 17, 2018. Apollo believes these claims are without merit. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On August 3, 2017, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AGM, Gareth Turner (an Apollo Partner) and Mark Beith (a former Apollo Principal) by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a class of current and former employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC (“CEVA Group”) who purchased restricted Class A shares in CEVA Investment Limited (“CIL”), the former parent company of CEVA Group. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to and defrauded the plaintiffs by inducing them to purchase shares in CIL and subsequently participating in a debt restructuring of CEVA Group in which shareholders of CIL did not receive a recovery. The complaint purports to seek damages in excess of €14 million . On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate. On October 18, 2017, the bankruptcy trustee for CIL filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to prevent Mr. McEvoy and his counsel from continuing to prosecute the Florida action on the basis that the relevant claims belong to the CIL bankruptcy estate. On November 21, 2017, the Florida court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the case pending resolution of the CIL bankruptcy trustee’s motion to enforce the automatic stay, staying the case until further Order. On February 9, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the CIL trustee’s motion to enforce the automatic stay and enjoined further prosecution of the McEvoy Action (the “February 9 Order”). On February 23, 2018, defendants Beith and Turner filed a motion to correct certain statements in the February 9 Order. Also on February 23, 2018, Mr. McEvoy filed a motion for leave to appeal the February 9 Order. On April 3, 2018, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Mr. McEvoy’s appeal of the February 9 Order was stayed pending the resolution of the motion to correct certain statements in that order. On April 12, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted the motion to correct, and entered an order to that effect on April 24, 2018. Based on the allegations in the complaint, Apollo believes that there is no merit to the claims. Additionally, as the case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Between July 25 and August 15, 2017, plaintiffs filed three purported stockholder class actions in the Nevada state and federal court against ClubCorp Holdings Inc. (“ClubCorp”), the directors of ClubCorp, and AGM, in connection with the proposed acquisition of ClubCorp. The cases in the District Court for Clark County, Nevada were originally captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No. A-17-758912-B (“Meng”); Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227-C (“Baum”); and Solak v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759987-B (“Solak”). On August 16, 2017, the Meng and Baum actions were consolidated with two other similar actions that did not name AGM as a defendant. The consolidated action is captioned In re ClubCorp Holdings Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-17-758912-B (“In re ClubCorp”). On September 21, 2017, the Solak action was consolidated into In re ClubCorp. On October 12, 2017, plaintiffs in In re ClubCorp filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint purports to assert claims against the directors of ClubCorp for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of ClubCorp. The complaint includes allegations that the directors, among other things, agreed to a transaction at an unreasonably low price, failed to take the necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, gave preferential severance benefits to certain executives, agreed to preclusive deal protection provisions, and included materially incomplete and misleading information in the proxy statement recommending that stockholders vote in favor of the acquisition. The complaint also purports to assert a claim against AGM for aiding and abetting the directors’ purported breach of fiduciary duty. On November 15, 2017, another plaintiff with separate counsel filed a motion to intervene, attaching a proposed complaint in intervention containing similar allegations but asserting claims only against ClubCorp and its directors, not AGM. On December 19, 2017, a hearing was held in which the motion to intervene was denied. On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 23, 2018, AGM, ClubCorp, and the ClubCorp directors filed motions to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss. On April 20, 2018, defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. On December 21, 2017, Harbinger Capital Partners II, LP, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P., Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations GP, LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Offshore Manager, L.L.C., Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd. (in voluntary liquidation), and Credit Distressed Blue Line Master Fund, Ltd. (collectively, “Harbinger”) commenced an action in New York Supreme Court captioned Harbinger Capital Partners II LP et al. v. Apollo Global Management LLC, et al. (No. 657515/2017). The complaint names as defendants (i) AGM, (ii) the funds managed by Apollo that invested in SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (“SkyTerra”) equity before selling their interests to Harbinger under an April 2008 agreement that closed in 2010, and (iii) six former SkyTerra directors, five of whom are current or former Apollo employees. The complaint alleges that during the period of Harbinger’s various equity and debt investments in SkyTerra, from 2004 to 2010, Defendants concealed from Harbinger material defects in SkyTerra technology that was to be used to create a new mobile wi-fi network. The complaint alleges that Harbinger would not have made investments in SkyTerra totaling approximately $1.9 billion had it known of the defects, and that the public disclosure of these defects ultimately led to SkyTerra filing for bankruptcy in 2012 (after it had been renamed LightSquared). The complaint asserts claims against (i) all defendants for fraud, civil conspiracy, and negligent misrepresentation, (ii) AGM and the Apollo-managed funds only for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and (iii) the SkyTerra director defendants only for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks $1.9 billion in damages, as well as punitive damages, interest, costs, and fees. On February 14, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation in the state court to stay the state court action until December 31, 2018. The Court entered the stay on February 21, 2018. On February 14, 2018, Defendants moved the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to reopen the LightSquared bankruptcy proceeding for the limited purpose of enforcing Harbinger’s assignment and release in that bankruptcy of the claims that it asserts in the New York state court action. On February 23, 2018, Apollo filed a Notice of Adjournment on behalf of all parties that adjourned without date the hearing on the motion to reopen, to be rescheduled to a new date and time following the expiration of the state-court stay. Apollo believes these claims are without merit. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On February 9, 2018, plaintiffs Joseph M. Dropp, Mary E. Dropp, Robert Levine, Susan Levine, and Kaarina Pakka filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (“Management VIII”), Apollo Global Management, LLC (“AGM”) and Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (“Diamond”) and several of its affiliates and executives. Plaintiffs, who allege that they bought vacation interest points from Diamond, allege that the points are securities and that defendants violated federal securities laws by selling the points without registering them as securities. Plaintiffs also assert a “control person” |
