Company: APO
Filing Date: 2025-02-24
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001858681-25-000034
Chunk: 306

Company: Apollo Global Management, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-02-24
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1A
Chunk 306
---
 to classify certain funds and their investments against certain criteria are becoming not uncommon. Some categorization requirements may be subjective and, accordingly, open to interpretation. If regulators disagree with the categorization methodologies we use, or new regulations, legislation, or regulatory guidance require a methodology of measuring or disclosing sustainability-related information that is diﬀerent from our current practice, it could have an adverse eﬀect on fundraising eﬀorts. Given the scrutiny on environmental, social and governance-related matters as well as the increasing number of regulatory obligations relating to our business, our investors, the funds we manage, and their investments, we risk being perceived as or accused of making inaccurate or misleading statements regarding the investment strategies of the funds we manage, as well as about our, the funds’, and their investments’ performance against sustainability-related measures and/or initiatives. Any such perception or accusation could adversely impact our ability to raise capital and attract new investors.

Conversely, so-called “anti-ESG” and “anti-DEI” sentiment has also gained momentum across the U.S., with several states and federal authorities having enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies, legislation or issued executive orders and legal opinions and engaged in related investigations and litigation. For example, boycott bills in certain states target financial institutions that are perceived as “boycotting” or “discriminating against” companies in certain industries (e.g., energy and mining) and prohibit government entities from doing business with such institutions and/or investing the government’s assets (including pension plan assets) through such institutions. Similar policies have been implemented or are being proposed at the federal level. In addition, 

41

certain jurisdictions now require that relevant government entities or managers/administrators of government investments make investments based solely on pecuniary factors without consideration of environmental, social and governance factors. If investors subject to such legislation viewed our funds, policies or practices as being in contradiction of such “anti-ESG” or “anti-DEI” policies, legislation, executive orders or legal opinions, such investors may not invest in our funds, our ability to maintain the size of our funds could be impaired, and it could negatively affect the price of our common stock. A regulatory framework that opposes funds or vehicles that apply ESG principles to their investment criteria also makes it harder for those funds or vehicles to operate across jurisdictions. In addition, certain investments by funds or vehicles we manage may have been based in part on projections regarding the availability of government programs encouraging the development