Company: APO
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001858681-25-000049
Chunk: 358

Company: Apollo Global Management, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-05-07
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 1
Chunk 358
---
 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business. On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of PlayAGS’s executives to proceed. On February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the entire case against all defendants, with prejudice, and instructed the clerk of the court to close the case. On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, in full, the District Court’s dismissal of claims against all defendants. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. On August 17, 2023, a purported stockholder of AGM filed a shareholder derivative complaint (the “Original Complaint”) in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against current AGM directors Marc Rowan, Scott Kleinman, James Zelter, Alvin Krongard, Michael Ducey, and Pauline Richards, Apollo Former Managing Partners Leon Black and Joshua Harris, and, as a nominal defendant, AGM. The action is captioned Anguilla Social Security Board vs. Black et al., C.A. No. 2023-0846-JTL and challenges the $570 million payments being made to the Former Managing Partners and Contributing Partners in connection with the elimination of the Up-C structure that was in place prior to Apollo’s merger with Athene. As previously disclosed in Apollo’s SEC filings, this purported stockholder previously had sought and received documents relating to the transaction pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Original Complaint alleged that the challenged payments amount to corporate waste, that the Former Managing Partners and Contributing Partners received payments in connection with the Corporate Recapitalization that exceed fair value and therefore breached their fiduciary duties, and that the independent conflicts committee of the AAM board of directors (which then consisted of Mr. Krongard, Mr. Ducey, and Ms. Richards) that negotiated the elimination of the TRA breached their fiduciary duties. The Original Complaint alleged that pre-suit demand was futile because a majority of AGM’s board is either not independent from the Former