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 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.

In June and July 2018, two purported stockholder derivative complaints were filed in Maryland state court (the "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 action named 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 named the Company as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint

The consolidated complaint included 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 made 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 State Court granted the Company's and the defendants' motion to stay that case pending the outcome of an earlier-filed securities class action ("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 disinterested and independent directors of the Company determined that the claims should not be pursued by the Company and both of these purported stockholders were informed of that determination.

As previously disclosed, on May 7, 2025, the parties in the Consolidated Kenney Derivative Action and the Consolidated Paul Derivative Action described below (together, the “Derivative Actions”) executed a formal stipulation of settlement memorializing the complete terms of a proposed settlement resolving the Derivative Actions (the "Settlement Agreement"). Amongst other things, the Settlement Agreement provides that (a) the Company will implement various corporate governance measures for a period of three years from the time that the settlement becomes final and non-appealable; and (b) a payment of $8.9 million, less any award of attorneys’ fees and costs to counsel for the plaintiffs, will be made to the Company on behalf of the defendants and will be funded using insurance proceeds. In exchange, the plaintiffs, the Company, and Under Armour stockholders derivatively on behalf of the Company, will grant customary releases in favor of the defendants of all of claims that were or could have been asserted in the Derivative Actions. On July 10, 2025, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Kenney Derivative Action filed a motion requesting final approval of the Settlement Agreement by the State Court. On August 14, 2025, the State Court held a final approval hearing for the Settlement Agreement. On August 18, 2025, the State Court issued an order that, among other things, granted the motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and dismissed the Consolidated Kenney Derivative Action with prejudice (the “Judgment”). An order closing the case was issued on October 20, 2025.

By agreeing to settle the Derivative Actions, the defendants in no way concede or admit liability for any of the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Derivative Actions. The defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions, and agreed to settle the Derivative Actions to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, costs, and burdens inherent in any litigation, including the Derivative Actions.

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 “Consolidated Paul Derivative Action”). Prior to filing their 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 April 24, 2023, the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs designated an operative complaint in the Consolidated Paul Derivative Action. The operative complaint named Mr. Plank, certain other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors, and certain other current and former Company executives as defendants, and named the Company as a nominal defendant. It asserted 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The operative complaint asserted breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims against the defendants and asserted a contribution claim against certain defendants. The operative complaint sought damages on behalf of the Company and also sought certain corporate governance related actions.

The Company and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint on June 23, 2023. The District Court granted that motion on September 27, 2023, dismissing the Consolidated Paul Derivative Action without prejudice, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Following that decision, Viskovich, one of the Derivative Lead Plaintiffs, filed the above-referenced Viskovich Action in State Court.

On May 7, 2025, while the appeal was pending, the parties in the Derivative Actions entered into the Settlement Agreement, which memorializes the terms of a settlement resolving those cases. A description of the Settlement Agreement, the settlement approval proceedings in the State Court, and the Judgment approving the Settlement Agreement is set forth above. On September 18, 2025, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and in accordance with the Judgment, the parties to the appeal filed in the Fourth Circuit a joint stipulation requesting the voluntary dismissal of the appeal. On September 19, 2025, the Fourth Circuit issued an order granting that request and dismissing the appeal.

As noted above, by agreeing to settle the Derivative Actions, the defendants in no way concede or admit liability for any of the claims that were or could have been asserted in the Derivative Actions. The defendants expressly have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims asserted in the Derivative Actions, and agreed to settle the Derivative Actions to eliminate the uncertainty, risk, costs, and burdens inherent in any litigation, including the Derivative Actions.

In accordance with 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. Legal proceedings and other contingencies for which no accrual has been established are disclosed to the extent required by ASC Topic 450.

In connection with the matters described above, the Consolidated Securities Action, and previously disclosed government investigations, the Company provided notice of claims under multiple director and officer liability insurance policy periods. While the Company’s director and officer insurance carriers from each policy period have funded a portion of the payment in connection with the previously disclosed settlement of the Consolidated Securities Action, the Company remains in litigation with certain of its insurance carriers regarding coverage with respect to one of these policy periods. On March 26, 2024, the District Court issued a decision and order that obligated these insurance carriers to provide coverage. On April 25, 2024, the insurance carriers filed a motion for entry of judgment or leave to appeal the March 26, 2024 decision. The Company opposed the insurance carriers’ motion, and briefing on the motion was completed on May 23, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the District Court granted the insurance carriers’ motion for entry of final judgment with respect to the District Court’s March 26, 2024 decision and stayed further proceedings in the District Court pending the Fourth Circuit’s resolution of the insurance carriers’ appeal with respect to the District Court’s March 26, 2024 decision. On January 16, 2025, the insurance carriers filed a notice of appeal. Briefing on the insurance carriers' appeal was completed as of July 25, 2025, and the appeal remains pending. Oral argument occurred on October 22, 2025. If the Fourth Circuit reverses the District Court’s decision, the Company may be required to repay the settlement amount funded by the insurance carriers, as well as any defense costs from the Consolidated Securities Action paid by these insurance carriers. The $90 million of insurance proceeds recognized as of September 30, 2025 remains subject to the litigation by the insurance carriers.

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.