Within the normal course of business, the Company enters into contractual commitments in order to promote the Company’s brand and products. These commitments include sponsorship agreements with teams and athletes on the collegiate and professional levels, official supplier agreements, athletic event sponsorships and other marketing commitments. The following is a schedule of the Company’s future minimum payments under its sponsorship and other marketing agreements as of March 31, 2023:


Fiscal year ending March 31,
2024	$	83,342
2025	142,396
2026	47,362
2027	23,867
2028	16,708
2029 and thereafter	98,750
Total future minimum sponsorship and other payments	$	412,425

The amounts listed above are the minimum compensation obligations and guaranteed royalty fees required to be paid under the Company’s sponsorship and other marketing agreements. The amounts listed above do not include additional performance incentives and product supply obligations provided under the agreements. It is not possible to determine how much the Company will spend on product supply obligations on an annual basis as contracts generally do not stipulate specific cash amounts to be spent on products. The amount of product provided to the sponsorships depends on many factors including general playing conditions, the number of sporting events in which they participate and the Company’s decisions regarding product and marketing initiatives. In addition, the costs to design, develop, source and purchase the products furnished to the endorsers are incurred over a period of time and are not necessarily tracked separately from similar costs incurred for products sold to customers.

In connection with various contracts and agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnify counterparties against certain third party claims relating to the infringement of intellectual property rights and other items. Generally, such indemnification obligations do not apply in situations in which the counterparties are grossly negligent, engage in willful misconduct, or act in bad faith. Based on the Company’s historical experience and the estimated probability of future loss, the Company has determined that the fair value of such indemnifications is not material to its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

From time to time, the Company is involved in litigation and other proceedings, including matters related to commercial and intellectual property disputes, as well as trade, regulatory and other claims related to its business. Other than as described below, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of its business. However, the matters described below, if decided adversely to or settled by

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the "District Court") were consolidated under the caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two additional putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court against the Company and certain of its current and former executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03209-RDB ("Patel"), and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-03581-RDB ("Waronker"), respectively). On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order that, among other things, consolidated the Patel and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action.

The operative complaint (the Third Amended Complaint or the "TAC") in the Consolidated Securities Action, was filed on October 14, 2020. The TAC asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), against the Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr. Plank. The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly to appear healthier. The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to disclose that the Company was under investigation by and cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") since July 2017. The class period identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1, 2019.

Discovery in the Consolidated Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an answer to the TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC. On December 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, among other things, certification of the class they are seeking to represent in the Consolidated Securities Action. On September 29, 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

In June and July 2018, two purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court (in cases captioned Kenney v. Plank, et al. (filed June 29, 2018) and Luger v. Plank, et al. (filed July 26, 2018), respectively). The cases were consolidated on October 19, 2018 under the caption Kenney v. Plank, et. al. The consolidated complaint in the Kenney matter names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, certain former Company executives, and Sagamore Development Company, LLC ("Sagamore") as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste claims against the individual defendants and asserts a claim against Sagamore for aiding and abetting certain of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The consolidated complaint seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions.

The consolidated complaint includes allegations challenging, among other things, the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products, as well as stock sales by certain individual defendants. The consolidated complaint also makes allegations related to the Company's 2016 purchase from entities controlled by Mr. Plank (through Sagamore) of certain parcels of land to accommodate the Company's growth needs, which was approved by the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors in accordance with the Company's policy on transactions with related persons.

On March 29, 2019, the court in the consolidated Kenney action granted the Company's and the defendants' motion to stay that case pending the outcome of both the Consolidated Securities Action and an earlier-filed derivative action asserting similar claims to those asserted in the Kenney action relating to the Company's purchase of parcels in the Baltimore Peninsula, an area of Baltimore previously referred to as Port Covington (which derivative action has since been dismissed in its entirety).

Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in Kenney v. Plank, et al. and Luger v. Plank, et al., both of the purported stockholders had sent the Company's Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of

Prior to the filing of the derivative complaints in these two actions, neither of the purported stockholders made a demand that the Company's Board of Directors pursue the claims asserted in the complaints. In October 2021, the court issued an order (i) consolidating the Cordell and Salo actions with the consolidated Kenney action into a single consolidated derivative action (the "Consolidated State Derivative Action"); (ii) designating the Kenney action as the lead case; and (iii) specifying that the scheduling order in the Kenney action shall control the Consolidated State Derivative Action.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consolidated State Derivative Action are without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter.

On January 27, 2021, the District Court entered an order consolidating for all purposes four separate stockholder derivative cases that previously had been filed in the court. On February 2, 2023, the District Court issued an order appointing Balraj Paul and Anthony Viskovich as lead plaintiffs (“Derivative Lead Plaintiffs”), appointing counsel for the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs as lead counsel, and recaptioning the consolidated case as Paul et al. v. Plank et al. (the “Federal Court Derivative Action”). Prior to their filing derivative complaints, both of the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs had sent the Company's Board of Directors a letter demanding that the Company pursue claims similar to the claims asserted in the derivative complaints. Following an investigation, a majority of disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company, and the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs were informed of that determination.

On March 16, 2023, the District Court issued an order granting a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice that had been filed by the plaintiff in one of the four derivative cases who had not been appointed as a lead plaintiff. The other three consolidated derivative cases remain pending as part of the Federal Court Derivative Action.

On April 24, 2023, the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs designated an operative complaint in the Federal Court Derivative Action. The operative complaint names Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors and certain former Company executives as defendants, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. It asserts allegations similar to those in the TAC filed in the Consolidated Securities Action matter discussed above, including allegations challenging (i) the Company's disclosures related to growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products; (ii) the Company's practice of shifting sales between quarterly periods supposedly to appear healthier and its purported failure to disclose that practice; (iii) the Company's internal controls with respect to revenue recognition and inventory management; and (iv) the Company's supposed failure to timely disclose investigations by the SEC and DOJ. The operative complaint asserts breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the defendants, and asserts a contribution claim under the federal securities laws against certain defendants. It seeks damages on behalf of the Company and certain corporate governance related actions. The deadline for the Company and the defendants to respond to the operative complaint is June 23, 2023.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Federal Court Derivative Action are without merit and intends to defend this matter vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this matter.

In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 450 “Contingencies” (“Topic 450”), the Company establishes accruals for contingencies when (i) the Company believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and (ii) the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate is a range, the Company will accrue the best estimate in that range; where no best estimate can be determined, the Company will accrue the minimum. As of March 31, 2023, the Company has estimated its liability and recorded $20 million in respect of certain ongoing legal proceedings summarized above. The timing of the resolution is unknown and the amount of loss ultimately incurred in connection with these matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amount accrued for these matters, and the Company expects a portion of the loss, if any is incurred, to be covered

In addition, in connection with the matters described above and previously disclosed government investigations, the Company provided notice of claims under multiple director and officer liability insurance policy periods. With respect to one policy period, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by certain of its insurance carriers seeking a declaration that no further amounts will be payable with respect to that policy period and with respect to one carrier, reimbursement for $10 million in defense and investigation costs previously paid to the Company. On April 26, 2023, the Company and one of its insurance carriers resolved the dispute related to that carrier’s claims for a declaration that no further amounts would be payable and seeking reimbursement of previously paid amounts. The resolution resulted in no reimbursement payable by the Company. The other carriers remaining in the case continue to seek a declaration that no further amounts will be payable with respect to that policy period. The timing of the resolution is unknown for the remaining claims in this matter.

From time to time, the Company’s view regarding probability of loss with respect to outstanding legal proceedings will change, proceedings for which the Company is able to estimate a loss or range of loss will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many matters presented in financial disclosures involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainties, estimates with respect to legal proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. Other than as described above, the Company believes that all current proceedings are routine in nature and incidental to the conduct of its business. However, the matters described above, if decided adversely to or settled by the Company, could result, individually or in the aggregate, in a liability material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.