COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
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 name 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, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 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., Case No. 2:18-cv-02262-JAR-TJJ (the “Gantulga Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Gantulga Action, which was filed on behalf of the Company, asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions. On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which the court granted on October 15, 2018. When the action was transferred to the Southern District of New York, it was re-captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10007-AJN. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on December 17, 2018. The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022. On October 2, 2019, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Kenna v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09148-AJN (the “Kenna Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on October 17, 2019. On April 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Kenna Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions and the Gantulga Action. The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022. On March 20, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Manuel v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02456-AJN (the “Manuel Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Manuel Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 21D, and 29(b) of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, and the Kenna Action. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on May 18, 2020. On April 7, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Dinkevich v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02870-AJN (the “Dinkevich Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Dinkevich Action asserts the same claims as the Manuel Action based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, the Kenna Action, and the Manuel Action. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which was granted on June 25, 2020. On January 11, 2022, the court lifted the stay. On September 23, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Lyon v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07940-AJN (the “Lyon Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The Lyon Action asserts claims for contribution and indemnification under the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment/constructive trust based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, the Kenna Action, the Manuel Action, and the Dinkevich Action. On January 14, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. 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., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0303-JRS (the “Lao Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s directors, Wanda, two of Wanda’s affiliates, Silver Lake, and one of Silver Lake’s affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Lao Action asserts claims directly, on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to transactions that the Company entered into with affiliates of Wanda and Silver Lake on September 14, 2018, and the special cash dividend of $1.55 per share of common stock that was payable on September 28, 2018 to the Company’s stockholders of record as of September 25, 2018. On July 18, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee to investigate and evaluate the claims and allegations asserted in the Lao Action and make a determination as to how the Company should proceed with respect to the Lao Action. On January 8, 2021, the Special Litigation Committee filed a report with the court recommending that the court dismiss all of the claims asserted in the Lao Action, and moved to dismiss all of the claims in the Lao Action. On June 6, 2022, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement to resolve the Lao Action for $17,375,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is subject to court approval. Plaintiff’s counsel intends to apply to the court for a fee and expense award, and any amount awarded by the court will be paid out of the Settlement Amount. The remainder of the Settlement Amount, less any taxes and tax related expenses, will be paid to the Company. Defendants agreed to the settlement and the payment of the Settlement Amount solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation, and continue to expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Lao Action. On June 24, 2022, the court scheduled a hearing for September 15, 2022, to, amount other things, consider whether to approve the proposed settlement.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

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 name 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, assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 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., Case No. 2:18-cv-02262-JAR-TJJ (the “Gantulga Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Gantulga Action, which was filed on behalf of the Company, asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions. On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which the court granted on October 15, 2018. When the action was transferred to the Southern District of New York, it was re-captioned Gantulga v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-10007-AJN. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on December 17, 2018. The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022.

On October 2, 2019, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Kenna v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09148-AJN (the “Kenna Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on October 17, 2019. On April 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Kenna Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions and the Gantulga Action. The stay was lifted as of February 9, 2022.

On March 20, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Manuel v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02456-AJN (the “Manuel Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Manuel Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 21D, and 29(b) of the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, and the Kenna Action. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which the court granted on May 18, 2020.

On April 7, 2020, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Dinkevich v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02870-AJN (the “Dinkevich Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Dinkevich Action asserts the same claims as the Manuel Action based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, the Kenna Action, and the Manuel Action. The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action, which was granted on June 25, 2020. On January 11, 2022, the court lifted the stay.

On September 23, 2021, a stockholder derivative complaint, captioned Lyon v. Aron, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07940-AJN (the “Lyon Action”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors. The Lyon Action asserts claims for contribution and indemnification under the Exchange Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment/constructive trust based on allegations substantially similar to the Actions, the Gantulga Action, the Kenna Action, the Manuel Action, and the Dinkevich Action. On January 14, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

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., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0303-JRS (the “Lao Action”), was filed against certain of the Company’s directors, Wanda, two of Wanda’s affiliates, Silver Lake, and one of Silver Lake’s affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Lao Action asserts claims directly, on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders, and

derivatively, on behalf of the Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to transactions that the Company entered into with affiliates of Wanda and Silver Lake on September 14, 2018, and the special cash dividend of $1.55 per share of common stock that was payable on September 28, 2018 to the Company’s stockholders of record as of September 25, 2018. On July 18, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee to investigate and evaluate the claims and allegations asserted in the Lao Action and make a determination as to how the Company should proceed with respect to the Lao Action. On January 8, 2021, the Special Litigation Committee filed a report with the court recommending that the court dismiss all of the claims asserted in the Lao Action, and moved to dismiss all of the claims in the Lao Action. On June 6, 2022, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement to resolve the Lao Action for $17,375,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). The settlement is subject to court approval. Plaintiff’s counsel intends to apply to the court for a fee and expense award, and any amount awarded by the court will be paid out of the Settlement Amount. The remainder of the Settlement Amount, less any taxes and tax related expenses, will be paid to the Company. Defendants agreed to the settlement and the payment of the Settlement Amount solely to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation, and continue to expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Lao Action. On June 24, 2022, the court scheduled a hearing for September 15, 2022, to, amount other things, consider whether to approve the proposed settlement.