COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 11—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company, in the normal course of business, is a party to various ordinary course claims from vendors (including food and beverage suppliers and film distributors), landlords, competitors, and other legal proceedings. If management believes that a loss arising from these actions is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no point is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these actions is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. Management believes that the ultimate outcome of such matters discussed below, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or overall trends in results of operations. However, litigation and claims are subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable outcomes can occur. An unfavorable outcome might include monetary damages. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on the results of operations in the period in which the outcome occurs or in future periods. On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the “Hawaii Action”), and Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the “Nichols Action,” and together with the Hawaii Action, the “Actions”), respectively, were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Actions, which named certain of the Company’s officers and directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters of the Company’s February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as defendants, asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) with respect to alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other public disclosures. On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions. On January 22, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 23, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. On March 2, 2020, plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. On March 30, 2021, the court granted the motion to certify the class. On September 2, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Actions for $18.0 million. The Company agreed to the settlement and the payment of the settlement amount to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation. The Company and the other defendants continue to expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Actions. On November 1, 2021, the parties to the Actions signed a stipulation of settlement, which memorialized the terms of the agreement in principle, and which the plaintiffs filed with the court. Also on November 1, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement. On November 8, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, approved the form of notice to be disseminated to class members, and scheduled a final fairness hearing on the settlement for February 10, 2022. On February 14, 2022, the court issued a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action. On May 21, 2018, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al. Gantulga v. Aron, et al. On October 2, 2019, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Kenna v. Aron On March 20, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Manuel v. Aron, et al On April 7, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Dinkevich v. Aron, et al On September 23, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Lyon v. Aron, et al. On June 14, 2023, the parties to the Gantulga, Kenna, Manuel, Dinkevich, and Lyon Actions signed a stipulation of settlement, which subject to the approval of the court, will resolve those actions. As consideration for the proposed settlement, the Company agreed to certain corporate governance reforms and the payment of a $1.0 million fee and expense award to the plaintiffs’ attorneys to be paid by the Company’s director’s and officer’s insurance carriers. Defendants agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation. Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damages with respect to the matters alleged in the Gantulga, Kenna, Manuel, Dinkevich, and Lyon Actions. On June 23, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement. On December 31, 2019, the Company received a stockholder litigation demand, requesting that the Board investigate the allegations in the Actions and pursue claims on the Company’s behalf based on those allegations. On May 5, 2020, the Board determined not to pursue the claims sought in the demand at this time. On July 15, 2020, the Company received a second stockholder litigation demand requesting substantially the same action as the stockholder demand it received on December 31, 2019. On September 23, 2020, the Board determined not to pursue the claims sought in the demand at this time. On April 22, 2019, a putative stockholder class and derivative complaint, captioned Lao v. Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd. On December 27, 2022, the Company received a letter from a purported stockholder, demanding to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C On February 6, 2023, the Company received a letter from another purported stockholder, demanding to inspect certain of the Company’s books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C On February 20, 2023, two putative stockholder class actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Allegheny County Employees’ Retirement System v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Munoz v Adam M. Aron, et al., In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation Allegheny Del. C Munoz Allegheny Allegheny Del. C the Company’s Common Stock be provided with a separate vote from the holders of the APEs on the Charter Amendment Proposals or that the APEs be enjoined from voting on the Charter Amendment Proposals, and an award of money damages. The Munoz On February 27, 2023, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a status quo order that (i) allowed the March 14, 2023 vote on the Charter Amendment Proposals to proceed, but precluded the Company from implementing the Charter Amendment Proposals pending a ruling by the court on the plaintiffs’ then-anticipated preliminary injunction motion, and (ii) scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ then-anticipated preliminary injunction motion for April 27, 2023 (the “Status Quo Order”). On April 2, 2023, the parties entered into a binding settlement term sheet to settle the Shareholder Litigation, which among other things, provided that the parties would jointly request that the Status Quo Order be lifted. Pursuant to the term sheet, the Company agreed to make a non-cash settlement payment to record holders of Common Stock as of the time (the “Settlement Class Time”) at which the Reverse Stock Split is effective (and after giving effect to the Reverse Stock Split) of one In connection with the proposed settlement payment, the Company recorded a On April 5, 2023, the court denied the motion to lift the Status Quo Order. On April 27, 2023, the parties jointly filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release (the “Settlement Stipulation”) with the court, which fully memorialized the settlement that the parties agreed to in the term sheet. On June 29 – 30, 2023, the court held a settlement hearing to consider whether to approve the settlement as outlined in the Settlement Stipulation. On July 21, 2023, the court issued an opinion which, citing issues with the scope of the release sought under the proposed settlement, declined to approve the settlement as presented. On July 22, 2023, the parties filed an addendum to the Settlement Stipulation in an effort to address the issues with the scope of the release raised by the court and requested that the court approve the settlement with the revised release set forth in the addendum. On July 24, 2023, the court responded to the parties’ July 22, 2023 filings requesting additional submissions in relation to the proposed settlement. The Company provided the additional requested submissions to the court on July 26, 2023. The Status Quo Order remains in place. Unless and until the court lifts the Status Quo Order, the Company will not proceed with filing the amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to effect the Charter Amendment Proposals. Nor will the Company make the litigation settlement payment contemplated by the Settlement Stipulation. See Note 13—Subsequent Events for further information. |