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, 2021 and December 31, 2020 of $1.0 billion and $1.0 billion, respectively, of which $347.9 million and $348.0 million related to Fund IX. Debt Covenants— Apollo’s debt obligations contain various customary loan covenants. As of March 31, 2021, 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 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, and directing the parties to conduct limited discovery, and submit new briefing, solely with respect to the statute of limitations. On July 30, 2020, Apollo and CEVA filed a joint motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. 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 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 (the “Bankruptcy Motion”). Briefing and hearing on the Bankruptcy 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, and Apollo voluntarily withdrew the Bankruptcy Motion subject to a right to refile the motion if Harbinger were to refile the state court action. On June 8, 2020, Harbinger refiled its litigation in New York Supreme Court, captioned Harbinger Capital Partners II, LP et al. v. Apollo Global Management, LLC et al. (No. 652342/2020). The complaint adds eight new defendants: two former SkyTerra executives, one former SkyTerra consultant, and five entities (four of whom have since been dismissed) that were Harbinger’s counterparties in a transaction involving TVCC One Six Holdings LLC (“TVCC”). It also adds three new claims relating to Harbinger’s contention that the new defendants induced Harbinger to buy TVCC to support SkyTerra’s network even though they allegedly knew that the network had material defects. The parties agreed to stay this action until November 15, 2020. On November 23, 2020, Defendants refiled the Bankruptcy Motion, and on November 24, 2020, filed in the state court a motion to stay the state court proceedings pending a ruling by the Bankruptcy Court on the Bankruptcy Motion. On February 1, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Bankruptcy Motion. On March 31, 2021, Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the New York Supreme Court action. Harbinger’s oppositions to those motions are due on June 15, 2021, and Defendants’ replies are due on July 29, 2021. 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. 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 was submitted to the state court for approval. On January 8, 2021, the state court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the state action with prejudice. 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 Delaware Court of Chancery, 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. On June 1, 2020, the Court granted the Apollo-affiliated defendants’ motion to dismiss, but the case remained pending against the officer defendants and TFM’s financial advisor in the transaction. On March 12, 2021, a settlement among the Plaintiff and the remaining defendants was publicly disclosed. The court scheduled a settlement hearing for July 7, 2021. On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery 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 “Presidio 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 Presidio Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with the SEC in connection with the Presidio 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 Presidio 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 Presidio Merger). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Presidio Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with the Presidio 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 completed briefing on motions to dismiss the amended complaint on April 30, 2020. On January 29, 2021, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion and accompanying orders granting the Apollo Defendants’ motion to dismiss, granting the motions to dismiss filed by the directors other than Presidio’s CEO, and denying motions to dismiss as to BCP, Liontree, and Presidio’s CEO. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. 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. On October 21, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to remand. On January 11, 2021, the District Court ordered the Clerk of Court to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County. On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to recover attorneys’ fees of approximately $35,000 for the remand briefing. Defendants filed their opposition on March 31, 2021, and Plaintiff replied on April 14, 2021. 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 the Delaware Court of Chancery, 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 the claims in this action are without merit. On July 1, 2020, Apollo moved to dismiss the complaint; briefing on that motion did not occur because the complaint was superseded, as described herein. On July 23, 2019, a group of former MPM shareholders filed an appraisal petition in Delaware Chancery Court seeking the fair value of their MPM shares that were purchased through MPM’s May 15, 2019 merger with a consortium of buyers, in an action captioned In re Appraisal of MPM Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0519 (Del. Ch.). While Apollo was not a party to the appraisal action, it was served a document subpoena on October 22, 2019, to which it responded. On June 3, 2020, petitioners moved for leave to file a verified amended appraisal petition and class-action complaint that included claims for breach of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against AGM Inc., the Apollo-affiliated fund that owned MPM’s shares before the merger, certain former MPM directors (including three Apollo employees), and members of the consortium that acquired MPM, based on alleged actions related to the May 2019 merger. The petitioners also sought to consolidate their appraisal proceeding with the Frank Funds action, and notified the Delaware Chancery Court via letter on September 23, 2020, that they had reached an agreement in principle with Frank Funds to consolidate the two cases. On November 13, 2020, the Chancery Court granted the parties’ stipulated order to consolidate the two matters, and on December 21, 2020, the Chancery Court granted petitioners’ motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. This new consolidated action is captioned In Re MPM Holdings Inc. Appraisal and Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2019-0519 (Del Ch.). Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on February 19, 2021. On March 18, 2021, the Chancery Court entered the parties’ stipulated proposed scheduling order, under which the motions to dismiss will be fully briefed on July 26, 2021. 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 March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by subsidiaries of AGM Inc. (the “Apollo Funds”) were added as defendants in a class action filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on December 7, 2017, in the Superior Court of California. Plaintiff alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals, a party equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo Funds. Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to comply with California wage and hour and related laws, and also has asserted claims based on various provisions of the California labor code and California’s unfair competition laws. On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification order. After being served with the Complaint in July 2020, a co-defendant removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 24, 2020, and AGM Inc. filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it on September 23, 2020. On March 24, 2021, the court granted AGM Inc.’s motion to dismiss and the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 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 May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc. (“Talos”), all of the members of Talos’s board of directors (including two Apollo partners), Riverstone Holdings, LLC (“Riverstone”), AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and unspecified money damages. On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The motion is now fully briefed and oral argument was held on February 19, 2021. 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 August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc. (“PlayAGS”), all of the members of PlayAGS’s board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC (these last four parties, together, the “Apollo Defendants”). The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo). The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 21, 2021, and they filed a further amended complaint on March 25, 2021. A responsive pleading is due by May 24, 2021. 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. 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, 2021, fixed and determinable payments due in connection with these obligations were as follows: Remaining 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Thereafter Total Other long-term obligations $ 25,226 $ 3,482 $ 1,998 $ 812 $ 704 $ 704 $ 32,926 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, 2021 and that would be reversed approximates $3.7 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 of related parties of Apollo, including p ortfolio companies of the funds Apollo manages, as well as third parties. As of March 31, 2021, AGS had an unfunded contingent commitment of $50.6 million outstanding related to such commitments. The commitment expired on April 1, 2021 with no funding on the part of AGS. As of December 31, 2019, there were no open underwriting commitments. In connection with the launch of Apollo Debt Solutions, a non-traded business development company (“BDC”), the Company agreed to guarantee a commitment to purchase the underlying portfolio investment, in the event the BDC does not raise sufficient third party capital. The Company’s maximum commitment is $500 million, and is fully backstopped by an unconsolidated related party fund. The likelihood of performance under the guarantee arrangement is determined to be remote. Merger Agreement Termination Fee— In connection with the merger with Athene Holding, the Merger Agreement contains certain termination rights and provides that, upon termination of the Merger Agreement, AGM Inc. will be obligated to pay AHL a cash termination fee of $81.9 million. See note 14 for further disclosure regarding the Merger Agreement and termination fee. 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 $113.2 million and $119.8 million as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, respectively. |