The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the “Securities Class Action Litigation”), each filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s securities during a specified period of time. Those cases were consolidated on July 17, 2019, under the caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 5, 2019, seeking to represent a class of purchasers from July 29, 2014 through March 26, 2019.

The operative complaint filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation alleges violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company’s contingent liabilities, business, operations, and prospects during the period of time specified above. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages sought. On May 3, 2022, the court dismissed the Company from the Securities Class Action Litigation but declined to dismiss the individual defendants. The court also lifted the stay of the proceedings and, on June 9, 2022, entered a scheduling order. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which was opposed, was fully briefed and pending as of December 31, 2022. Following a January 31, 2023 mediation before a private mediator, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Securities Class Action Litigation, subject to documentation and court approval. The putative settlement is expected to be fully funded by directors and officers liability insurance, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, with no contribution expected from the Company or the individual defendants. By agreeing to resolve the matter in principle, neither the Company nor any of the individual defendants are admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and they have expressly denied both. Rather, defendants entered into the agreement in principle to eliminate the risks, costs, and distractions associated with further litigation of this matter.

On January 12, 2023, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Haynes v. Charles B. Lebovitz, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0033-NAC, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Action”), naming the Company and certain directors as defendants. The Delaware Action alleged a claim against the Company for violation of Delaware General Corporation Law § 213(a) due to an improper record date for the 2022 annual meeting, and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, a declaration that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, an equitable accounting, unspecified monetary relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants denied that any such relief was warranted, and on February 15, 2023, the Delaware Action was voluntarily dismissed.

The Company is currently involved in certain other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of business, most of which is expected to be covered by liability insurance. Management makes assumptions and estimates concerning the likelihood and amount of any potential loss relating to these matters using the latest information available. The Company records a liability for litigation if an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and a reasonable estimate of the loss is a range, the Company accrues the best estimate within the range. If no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount within the range. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the litigation and indicates that an estimate of the loss or range of loss cannot be made. If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible and the estimated loss is material, the Company discloses the nature and estimate of the possible loss of the litigation. Based on current expectations, such matters, both individually and in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the liquidity, results of operations, business or financial condition of the Company.

The Company evaluates potential loss contingencies related to environmental matters using the same criteria described above related to litigation matters. Based on current information, an unfavorable outcome concerning such environmental matters, both individually and in the aggregate, is considered to be reasonably possible. However, the Company believes its maximum potential exposure to loss would not be material to its results of operations or financial condition. The Company has a master insurance policy that provides coverage through 2027 for certain environmental claims up to $40,000 per occurrence and up to $40,000 in the aggregate, subject to deductibles and certain exclusions. At certain locations, individual policies are in place.

The Operating Partnership may guarantee the debt of a joint venture primarily because it allows the joint venture to obtain funding at a lower cost than could be obtained otherwise. This results in a higher return for the joint venture on its investment, and a higher return on the Operating Partnership's investment in the joint venture. The Operating Partnership may receive a fee from the joint venture for providing the guaranty. Additionally, when the Operating Partnership issues a guaranty, the terms of the joint venture agreement typically provide that the Operating Partnership may receive indemnification from the joint venture partner or have the ability to increase its ownership interest. The guarantees expire upon repayment of the debt, unless noted otherwise.

The following table represents the Operating Partnership's guarantees of unconsolidated affiliates' debt as reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2022 and 2021:


	As of December 31, 2022									Obligation recorded to reflect guaranty
Unconsolidated Affiliate	Company's Ownership Interest	Outstanding Balance		Percentage Guaranteed by the Operating Partnership		Maximum Guaranteed Amount		Debt Maturity Date (1)		December 31, 2022		December 31, 2021
West Melbourne I, LLC - Phase I	50%	$	36,947	50%		$	18,474	Feb-2025	(2)	$	185	$	195
West Melbourne I, LLC - Phase II	50%		11,846	50%			5,923	Feb-2025	(2)		59		69
Port Orange I, LLC	50%		49,498	50%			24,749	Feb-2025	(2)		247		258
Ambassador Infrastructure, LLC	65%		7,001	100%			7,001	Mar-2025			70		83
Shoppes at Eagle Point, LLC	50%		39,683		—		—	May-2032	(3)		—		127
Atlanta Outlet JV, LLC	50%		4,383	100%			4,383	Nov-2023			—		—
Louisville Outlet Shoppes, LLC	50%		7,397	100%			7,397	Apr-2023			—		—
Total guaranty liability										$	561	$	732

(1)

Excludes any extension options.

(2)

These loans have a one-year extension option at the joint venture’s election.

(3)

The guaranty was removed when the Company entered into a new loan in April 2022.

For the year ended December 31, 2022 and the period from November 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, the Successor Company evaluated each guaranty, listed in the table above, individually by looking at the debt service ratio, cash flow forecasts and the performance of each loan. The result of the analysis was that each loan is current. The Successor Company did not record a credit loss related to the guarantees listed in the table above for the year ended December 31, 2022 and the period from November 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021.

For the period from January 1, 2021 through October 31, 2021 and for the year ended December 31, 2020, the Predecessor Company evaluated each guaranty, listed in the table above, individually by looking at the debt service ratio, cash flow forecasts, the performance of each loan and, where applicable, the collateral value in relation to the outstanding amount of the loan. The result of the analysis was that each loan is current, performing and, where applicable, the collateral value was greater than the outstanding amount of the loan. The Predecessor Company did not record a credit loss related to the guarantees listed in the table above for the period from January 1, 2021 through October 31, 2021 and the year ended December 31, 2020.