The Company has unfunded capital commitments of $542 million as of March 31, 2026 related to the funds it manages. Separately, Athene had commitments to make investments, inclusive of related party commitments discussed previously and those of its consolidated VIEs, of $36.1 billion as of March 31, 2026. Athene’s commitments primarily include capital contributions to investment funds and mortgage loan commitments. The Company expects most of the current commitments will be invested over the next five years; however, these commitments could become due any time upon counterparty request.

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, 2026 and that could be reversed approximates $5.6 billion. 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. Management views the possibility of all of the investments becoming worthless as remote.

AGS has entered into an arrangement with certain funds managed by State Street Global Advisors (“SSG”) to provide firm bids for certain securities sold to SSG managed funds. These firm bids are at market prices determined by AGS on an intra-daily basis, which if accepted by SSG, would obligate AGS to purchase the securities at such prices. The total obligation of AGS to provide these firm bids is limited to 25% of the prior day’s end-of-day net asset value of the securities held by SSG that were originated from AGS, with an additional weekly cap set at 50% of the net asset value from five trading days prior.

The Company, along with a third-party institutional investor, has committed to provide financing to a consolidated VIE that invests across Apollo’s capital markets platform (such VIE, the “Apollo Capital Markets Partnership”). Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company has committed equity financing to the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership. The Apollo Capital Markets Partnership also has a revolving credit facility with Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, as lead arranger, administrative agent and letter of credit issuer, Mizuho Bank Ltd., and other lenders party thereto, pursuant to which it may borrow up to $2.5 billion. The revolving credit facility, which has a final maturity date of October 15, 2027, is non-recourse to the Company, except that the Company provided customary comfort letters with respect to its capital contributions to the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership. As of March 31, 2026, the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership had funded commitments of $2.1 billion, on a net basis, to transactions across Apollo’s capital markets platform, all of which were funded through the revolving credit facility and other asset-based financing. No capital had been funded by the Company to the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership pursuant to its commitment.

Whether the commitments of the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership are actually funded, in whole or in part, depends on the contractual terms of such commitments, including the satisfaction or waiver of any conditions to closing or funding. It is expected that between the time the Apollo Capital Markets Partnership makes a commitment and funding of such commitment, efforts will be made to syndicate such commitment to, among others, third parties, which should reduce its risk when committing to certain transactions. The Apollo Capital Markets Partnership may also, with respect to a particular transaction, enter into other arrangements with third parties which reduce its commitment risk.

In connection with the acquisition of Stone Tower in 2012, Apollo agreed to pay its former owners a specified percentage of future performance revenues earned from certain of its funds, CLOs, and strategic investment accounts. This obligation was determined based on the present value of estimated future performance revenue payments and is recorded in other liabilities. The fair value of the remaining contingent obligation was $56 million and $72 million as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. This contingent consideration obligation is remeasured to fair value at each reporting period until the obligations are satisfied. The changes in the fair value of the Stone Tower contingent consideration obligation is reflected in profit sharing expense within compensation and benefits in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

In connection with the Bridge acquisition and consistent with standard business practices, Bridge provides property management and various other services to Bridge funds and third parties, and has agreed, in certain cases, to reimburse such service recipients (or their affiliates) for losses arising from, among other things, fraud, misconduct, gross negligence, or misappropriation of funds in each case attributable to Bridge or its affiliates. Bridge’s maximum exposure under these arrangements cannot be determined as these indemnities relate to future claims that may be made against Bridge or related parties, but which have not yet occurred. No liability related to these indemnities has been recorded in the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition as of March 31, 2026. Based on past experience, management believes that the risk of loss related to these indemnities is remote.

The Company may incur contingent liabilities for claims that may be made against it in the future. For example, Bridge and certain Bridge funds have provided non-recourse carve-out guarantees for fraud, willful misconduct and other customary wrongful acts, environmental indemnities, mechanics liens, and other performance guarantees. As of March 31, 2026, the aggregate notional amount of loans that Bridge provided contingent performance guarantees for under these arrangements is $691 million, and the Company’s liabilities for these matters would require a claim to be made against the Company in the future.

Athene also issues secured and other funding agreements. Secured funding agreements issued under Athene’s FABR programs involve special-purpose, unaffiliated entities entering into repurchase agreements with a third party, the proceeds of which are used by the special-purpose entities to purchase funding agreements from Athene. As of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, Athene had $27.6 billion and $27.1 billion, respectively, of secured and other funding agreements outstanding, of which $21.5 billion and $21.0 billion were issued under the FABR program, respectively, and $6.1 billion and $6.1 billion were direct funding agreements, respectively.

In connection with the Company and CS’s previously announced transaction, whereby Atlas acquired certain assets of the CS Securitized Products Group, two subsidiaries of the Company have each issued an assurance letter to CS to guarantee the full five year deferred purchase obligation of Atlas in the amount of $3.3 billion. In March 2024, in connection with Atlas concluding its investment management agreement with CS, the deferred purchase obligation amount was reduced to $2.5 billion. In addition, certain strategic investors have made equity commitments to Atlas, which obligate these investors for a portion of the deferred purchase obligation. The Company’s guarantee is not probable of payment, therefore, there is no liability on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

On December 21, 2017, several entities referred to collectively as “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 AAM, and funds managed by Apollo that invested in SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (“SkyTerra”), among others. 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. The complaint further 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 sought $1.9 billion in damages, as well as punitive damages, interest, costs, and fees. On June 12, 2019, Harbinger voluntarily discontinued the state action without prejudice. 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 added eight new defendants and three new claims relating to Harbinger’s contention that the new defendants induced Harbinger to buy CCTV One Four Holdings, LLC (“CCTV”) to support SkyTerra’s network even though they allegedly knew that the network had material defects. On November 23, 2020, Defendants filed in bankruptcy court a motion to reopen LightSquared’s bankruptcy proceedings, 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. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the New York Supreme Court action on March 31, 2021, which were granted in part and denied in part on May 23, 2023. The court granted in full the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Harbinger’s complaint as time-barred and denied as moot the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 18, 2025, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the court’s ruling. On April 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for re-argument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the First Department denied on July 24, 2025. On August 25, 2025, Harbinger filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the Court of Appeals denied on April 21, 2026.

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, and James Zelter, former AGM directors 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 Managing Partners or face a substantial likelihood of liability in light of the challenges to the transaction. The Original Complaint sought, among other things, declaratory relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On November 16, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the Original Complaint on the basis that, among other things, the plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit demand on the Apollo board of directors. On February 9, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) that adds new factual allegations but names the same defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the same relief as the Original Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that pre-suit demand was futile for the same reasons alleged in the Original Complaint. On April 25, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 20, 2024, the Court of

Chancery denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. AGM and the defendants filed answers to the Amended Complaint on November 25, 2024. On October 28, 2024, the AGM board of directors adopted resolutions forming a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) comprising directors whom the board determined to be independent and disinterested. The AGM board of directors delegated to the SLC, among other things, the full and exclusive power and authority of the board to investigate, review and evaluate the facts and circumstances asserted in the litigation and determine whether pursuing the litigation is in the best interests of AGM and its stockholders. Pursuant to an order of the court, all proceedings in the litigation are stayed until May 30, 2026. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

On March 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of AGM filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against AGM. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain provisions of the stockholders agreement, entered into on January 1, 2022 between AGM and the Former Managing Partners, violate Delaware law. On July 11, 2024, AGM moved to dismiss. On August 7, 2024, the court entered an order staying the motion to dismiss pending the resolution of the appeal of the decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co., 311 A.3d 809 (Del. Ch. 2024). The stay expired on January 20, 2026. Briefing on AGM’s motion to dismiss resumed thereafter and was completed as of March 14, 2026. That motion is currently pending before the court. AGM believes the claims in this action are without merit. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Two purported stockholders of AGM have filed separate class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims against AGM, Marc Rowan, and Leon Black, and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions are captioned Solomon Feldman v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-1692 (filed March 2, 2026), and Richard Perez v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-3550 (filed April 29, 2026), respectively. Both complaints challenge, among other things, certain of the defendants’ public statements in 2021 and 2022 that AGM never did any business with Jeffrey Epstein. The class period alleged in both complaints is May 10, 2021 through February 21, 2026, inclusive. Motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the putative class are pending. AGM intends to vigorously defend against the claims brought by plaintiffs in this matter. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Following assertions made by German tax authorities regarding historical transactions in one of the Company’s funds, the Company voluntarily disclosed certain internal reorganization transactions of fund entities to these authorities. Consequently, the Company has received certain assessments with respect to such reorganizations, and the Company believes the German tax authorities may seek further assessments; any final assessment could be material. The Company believes no such tax is due and intends to contest any assessment vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot reasonably estimate any potential loss.