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, 2020 and December 31, 2019 of $1.1 billion and $1.1 billion , respectively, of which $394 million and $394 million related to Fund IX. Debt Covenants— Apollo’s debt obligations contain various customary loan covenants. As of March 31, 2020 , 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. 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 Inc., and certain entities (the “Apollo Entities”) organized and owned by investment funds managed by affiliates of AGM Inc. The complaint alleged that AGM Inc. 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 Carige’s financial condition supposedly to facilitate an eventual acquisition of Carige. The causes of action were based in tort under Italian law. Carige purportedly sought damages of €450 million in connection with the sale of the insurance businesses and €800 million for other losses. With judgment no. 3118/2018 published on December 6, 2018, the Court of Genoa fully rejected all the claims raised by Carige against AGM Inc. and the Apollo Entities, and also awarded attorneys' fees in their favor for an amount of €428,996.10 . Carige filed an appeal on January 3, 2019 before the Court of Appeal of Genoa. The Apollo Entities appeared in the proceedings requesting the Court to reject Carige’s appeal. On November 21, 2019, Carige and the Apollo Entities entered into a settlement agreement whereby, among other things, each party finally and irrevocably released and discharged the other parties from all their respective claims, actions and/or requests raised in the litigation. Accordingly, immediately after signing the settlement agreement, Carige and the Apollo Entities filed with the Court a joint declaration whereby they reported to the Court that they had waived and withdrawn their respective claims. On August 3, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against AGM Inc., a senior partner of Apollo and a former principal of Apollo by Michael McEvoy on behalf of a purported class of employees of subsidiaries of CEVA Group, LLC (“CEVA Group”) who purchased shares in CEVA Investment Limited (“CIL”), the former parent company of CEVA Group. The complaint alleged 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. On February 9, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the claims asserted in the complaint were assets of CIL, which is a chapter 7 debtor, and that the complaint was null and void as a violation of the automatic stay. McEvoy subsequently revised his complaint to attempt to assert claims that do not belong to CIL. The amended complaint no longer named any individual defendants, but Apollo Management VI, L.P. and CEVA Group were added as defendants. The amended complaint sought damages of approximately €30 million and asserts, among other things, claims for violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract. On December 7, 2018, after receiving permission from the Bankruptcy Court, McEvoy filed his amended complaint in the District Court in Florida. On January 18, 2019, Apollo filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on that motion was held December 3, 2019. On January 6, 2020, the Florida court granted in part Apollo’s motion to dismiss, dismissing McEvoy’s Investment Advisers Act claim with prejudice, and denying without prejudice Apollo’s motion with respect to the remaining claims. The court also set a schedule for a summary judgment motion on the remaining claims based on the statute of limitations. 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 named as defendants (i) AGM Inc., (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 alleged that during the period of Harbinger’s various equity and debt investments in SkyTerra, from 2004 to 2010, the defendants concealed from Harbinger material defects in SkyTerra technology that was to be used to create a new mobile wi-fi network. The complaint alleged 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 asserted claims against (i) all defendants for fraud, civil conspiracy, and negligent misrepresentation, (ii) AGM Inc. 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 sought $1.9 billion in damages, as well as punitive damages, interest, costs, and fees. This action was stayed from February 14, 2018, through June 12, 2019. On February 14, 2018, the 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 asserted in the New York state court action. Briefing and hearing on this motion were adjourned while the state court stay was pending. On June 12, 2019, Harbinger voluntarily discontinued the state action without prejudice subject to a tolling agreement. On June 12, 2019, Apollo voluntarily withdrew its bankruptcy court motion subject to a right to refile the motion if Harbinger were to refile the state court action. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018, alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock. The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about certain litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT’s efforts to protect its intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018, and those motions were fully briefed. On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and directors, and AGM Inc. The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally alleged that the registration statement was materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT’s financial results, along with certain customer and business metrics. On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named the same Apollo-affiliated defendants as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those motions were fully briefed. On July 26, 2019, the state court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the question whether it has personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo defendants. On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions. The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement will be submitted to the state court for approval. The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo defendants. On May 3, 2018, Caldera Holdings Ltd, Caldera Life Reinsurance Company, and Caldera Shareholder, L.P. (collectively, “Caldera”) filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, naming as defendants AGM Inc., Apollo Management, L.P., Apollo Advisors VIII, L.P., Apollo Capital Management VIII, LLC, Athene Asset Management, L.P., Athene Holding, Ltd., and Leon Black (collectively, “Defendants” and all but Athene Holding, Ltd., the “Apollo Defendants”). On July 12, 2018, Caldera filed a complaint, Index No. 652175/2018 (the “Complaint”), alleging three causes of action: (1) tortious interference with prospective business relations/prospective economic advantage; (2) defamation/trade disparagement/injurious falsehood; and (3) unfair competition. The Complaint sought damages of no less than $1.5 billion , as well as exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and an injunction. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on September 21, 2018 and Caldera filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2019 (the “Amended Complaint”). Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and the Apollo Defendants submitted to the Court a Final Arbitration Award issued on April 26, 2019 in a JAMS arbitration, finding Caldera, Imran Siddiqui, and Ming Dang liable for various causes of action, including breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting thereof. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on May 31, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Court issued a Decision and Order dismissing Caldera’s complaint in its entirety as against all Defendants. On December 23, 2019, the Apollo Defendants filed a Notice of Entry of the Decision and Order. On January 8, 2020, Caldera filed a Notice of Appeal. On March 7, 2019, plaintiff Elizabeth Morrison filed an amended complaint in an action captioned Morrison v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No. 12808-VCG, pending in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and certain AGM Inc. affiliates. The original complaint had only named as defendants certain officers and directors (the “TFM defendants”) of The Fresh Market, Inc. (“TFM”), claiming that those defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with their consideration and approval of a merger agreement between TFM and certain entities affiliated with Apollo, including by engaging in a sale process that improperly favored AGM Inc., and/or Apollo Management VIII, L.P., by agreeing to an inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. In addition to AGM Inc., the amended complaint added as defendants Apollo Overseas Partners (Delaware 892) VIII, L.P., Apollo Overseas Partners (Delaware) VIII, L.P., Apollo Overseas Partners VIII, L.P., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., AIF VIII Management, LLC, Apollo Management, L.P., Apollo Management GP, LLC, Apollo Management Holdings, L.P., Apollo Management Holdings GP, LLC, APO Corp., AP Professional Holdings, L.P., Apollo Advisors VIII, L.P., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings, Inc., and other defendants. The amended complaint alleged that the Apollo defendants aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties by the TFM defendants. After the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on May 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 3, 2019, maintaining the same claim against the same Apollo defendants as the prior complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 12, 2019. On December 31, 2019, the court issued a decision dismissing certain of the TFM defendants while denying the motions of others. The court deferred ruling on the motions filed by several defendants, including the Apollo-affiliated defendants. Those defendants for whom ruling was deferred submitted supplemental briefs in support of dismissal on January 31, 2020, and briefing was completed by February 24. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Presidio, Inc. (“Presidio”), all of the members of Presidio’s board of directors (including five directors who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and Port Merger Sub, Inc. (together, “BCP”) challenging the then-pending acquisition of Presidio by BCP (the “Merger”). The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL. The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged breaches. On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote and denied that motion. On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. (together, the “Apollo Defendants”) and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio’s financial advisor in connection with the Merger). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, that the Apollo Defendants were controlling stockholders of Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio’s public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and filed supporting memoranda by April 30, 2020. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC (“CareerBuilder”) and AGM Inc. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan. Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.’s agent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020. That motion was fully briefed on February 14, 2020. Defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint is 21 days after the court rules on the remand motion. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On January 15, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”) filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Terrier Media Buyer, Inc. d/b/a Cox Media Group (“CMG”), AGM Inc., NBI Holdings, LLC, Camelot Media Buyer, Inc. and Camelot Media Holdings, LLC., among other defendants. DISH’s lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in a series of transactions designed to take control of certain local television broadcast stations in a way that deprived DISH of its contractual right to retransmit to its subscribers the signals of certain of the local broadcast television stations. DISH seeks a declaration that it may continue to retransmit under its prior retransmission agreement, among other relief. On the same day it filed its lawsuit, DISH obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (“TRO”) that enjoins all defendants (i) from taking any action to interfere with performance of a retransmission agreement concerning certain local television stations, (ii) from prohibiting DISH from retransmitting the signals of those stations, and (iii) from otherwise interfering with DISH’s right to retransmit the signals of those stations. On January 24, 2020, the Circuit Court of Cook County extended the TRO. On the same day, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. DISH subsequently moved to remand the case back to state court, which motion was denied, and for leave to name additional AGM Inc. subsidiaries as defendants, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court granted DISH leave to name AP IX Titan Holdings GP, LLC and AP IX (PMC) VoteCo, LLC as defendants in DISH’s amended complaint. On May 1, 2020, DISH filed its amended complaint. DISH’s forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction is expected to be fully briefed by June 25, 2020. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. In March 2020, Frank Funds, which claims to be a former shareholder of MPM Holdings, Inc. (“MPM”), commenced an action in Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Frank Funds v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0130, against AGM Inc., certain former MPM directors (including three Apollo officers and employees), and members of the consortium that acquired MPM in a May 2019 merger. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of former MPM shareholders, a claim against Apollo for breach of its fiduciary duties as MPM’s alleged controlling shareholder in connection with the May 2019 merger in which a consortium acquired MPM. Frank Funds seeks unspecified compensatory damages. 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. Commitments and Contingencies— Other long-term obligations relate to payments with respect to certain consulting agreements entered into by Apollo Investment Consulting LLC, a subsidiary of Apollo, as well as long-term service contracts. A significant portion of these costs are reimbursable by funds or portfolio companies. As of March 31, 2020 , fixed and determinable payments due in connection with these obligations were as follows: Remaining 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Thereafter Total Other long-term obligations $ 14,972 $ 3,275 $ 1,892 $ 662 $ 662 $ 662 $ 22,125 Contingent Obligations— Performance allocations with respect to certain funds are subject to reversal in the event of future losses to the extent of the cumulative revenues recognized in income to date. If all of the existing investments became worthless, the amount of cumulative revenues that have been recognized by Apollo through March 31, 2020 and that would be reversed approximates $0.7 billion . Management views the possibility of all of the investments becoming worthless as remote. Performance allocations are affected by changes in the fair values of the underlying investments in the funds that Apollo manages. Valuations, on an unrealized basis, can be significantly affected by a variety of external factors including, but not limited to, bond yields and industry trading multiples. Movements in these items can affect valuations quarter to quarter even if the underlying business fundamentals remain stable. Additionally, at the end of the life of certain funds that the Company manages, there could be a payment due to a fund by the Company if the Company, as general partner, has received more performance allocations than was ultimately earned. The general partner obligation amount, if any, will depend on final realized values of investments at the end of the life of each fund or as otherwise set forth in the respective limited partnership agreement of the fund. See note 14 to our condensed consolidated financial statements for further details regarding the general partner obligation. Certain funds may not generate performance allocations as a result of unrealized and realized losses that are recognized in the current and prior reporting period. In certain cases, performance allocations will not be generated until additional unrealized and realized gains occur. Any appreciation would first cover the deductions for invested capital, unreturned organizational expenses, operating expenses, management fees and priority returns based on the terms of the respective fund agreements. One of the Company’s subsidiaries, AGS, provides underwriting commitments in connection with securities offerings to the portfolio companies of the funds Apollo manages. As of March 31, 2020 , there were no underwriting commitments. Contingent Consideration— In connection with the acquisition of Stone Tower in April 2012, the Company agreed to pay the former owners of Stone Tower a specified percentage of any future performance revenues earned from certain of the Stone Tower funds, CLOs, and strategic investment accounts. This contingent consideration liability was determined based on the present value of estimated future performance revenue payments, and is recorded in profit sharing payable in the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition. The fair value of the remaining contingent obligation was $76.7 million and $112.5 million as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019 , respectively. The contingent consideration obligations will be remeasured to fair value at each reporting period until the obligations are satisfied and are characterized as Level III liabilities. The changes in the fair value of the contingent consideration obligations is reflected in profit sharing expense in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. See note 6 for further information regarding fair value measurements. |