In April 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and release with respect to the class action lawsuit filed on March 16, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Wave Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Salon Adrian. The settlement agreement stated that the Company had to set aside a common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of $90,000 to be disbursed to class members in accordance with an agreed-upon formula that is based upon aggregate damages of $60,000. The Court granted final approval to the proposed settlement on August 22, 2019. Class members are comprised of past and current tenants at certain of the Company's shopping centers that it owns or formerly owned during the class period, which extended from January 1, 2011 through the date of preliminary court approval. Class members who are past tenants and made a claim pursuant to the Court's order will receive payment of their claims in cash. Class members who are current tenants will receive monthly credits against rents and future charges, beginning no earlier than January 1, 2020 and continuing for the following five years. Any amounts under the settlement allocated to tenants with outstanding amounts payable to the Company, including tenants which have declared bankruptcy or declare bankruptcy over the relevant period, will first be deducted from the amounts owed to the Company. All attorney’s fees and associated costs to be paid to class counsel (up to a maximum of $28,000), any incentive award to the class representative (up to a maximum of $50), and class administration costs (which are expected to not exceed $100), have or will be funded by the common fund, which has been approved by the Court. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company did not pay any dividends to holders of its common shares payable in the third and fourth quarters of 2019. The settlement agreement does not restrict the Company's ability to declare dividends payable in 2020 or in subsequent years. The Company recorded an accrued liability and corresponding litigation settlement expense of $88,150 in the three months ended March 31, 2019 related to the settlement agreement. The Company reduced the accrued liability by $26,396, a majority of which was related to past tenants that did not submit a claim pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the remainder relating to tenants that either opted out of the lawsuit or waived their rights to their respective settlement amounts. The Company also reduced the accrued liability by $23,050 related to attorney and administrative fees that were paid pursuant to the settlement agreement. The Company also received document requests in the third quarter of 2019, in the form of subpoenas, from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice regarding the Wave

Lengths Hair Salons of Florida, Inc. litigation and other related matters. The Company is continuing to cooperate in these matters.

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.

The complaints filed in the Securities Class Action Litigation allege 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 periods 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. The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty.

Certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers have been named as defendants in nine shareholder derivative lawsuits (collectively, the “Derivative Litigation”). On June 4, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Robert Garfield v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al. , 1:19-cv-01038-LPS, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “ Garfield Derivative Action”), purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers and directors. On June 24, 2019, September 5, 2019 and September 25, 2019, respectively, other shareholders filed three additional putative derivative complaints, each in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned as follows: Robert Cohen v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al. , 1:19-cv-01185-LPS (the “ Cohen Derivative Action”); Travis Lore v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al. , 1:19-cv-01665-LPS (the “ Lore Derivative Action”), and City of Gainesville Cons. Police Officers’ and Firefighters Retirement Plan v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al. , 1:19-cv-01800 (the “ Gainesville Derivative Action”), each asserting substantially similar claims purportedly on behalf of the Company against similar defendants. The Court consolidated the Garfield Derivative Action and the Cohen Derivative Action on July 17, 2019, under the caption In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Derivative Litigation , 1:19-cv-01038-LPS (the " Consolidated Derivative Action"). On July 25, 2019, the Court stayed proceedings in the Consolidated Derivative Action pending resolution of an eventual motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On October 14, 2019, the parties to the Gainesville Derivative Action and the Lore Derivative Action filed a joint stipulation and proposed order confirming that each of those cases is subject to the consolidation order previously entered by the Court in the Consolidated Derivative Action and that further proceedings in those cases are stayed pending resolution of an eventual motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action Litigation. On July 22, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Shebitz v. Lebovitz et al. , 1:19-cv-00213, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “ Shebitz Derivative Action”); on January 10, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Chatman v. Lebovitz, et al., 2020-0011-JTL, in the Delaware Chancery Court (the “Chatman Derivative Action”); on February 12, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Kurup v. Lebovitz, et al., 2020-0070-JTL, in the Delaware Chancery Court (the “ Kurup Derivative Action”); on February 26, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Kemmer v. Lebovitz, et al., 1:20-cv-00052, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “ Kemmer Derivative Action”); and on April 14, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Hebig v. Lebovitz, et al., 1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (the “ Hebig Derivative Action”), each asserting substantially similar claims purportedly on behalf of the Company against similar defendants. On October 7, 2019, the Court stayed the Shebitz Derivative Action, pending resolution of an eventual motion to dismiss in the related Securities Class Action Litigation; the Company expects the Chatman, Kurup, Kemmer, and Hebig Derivative Actions to be stayed as well.

The complaints filed in the Derivative Litigation allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The factual allegations upon which these claims are based are similar to the factual allegations made in the Securities Class Action Litigation, described above. The complaints filed in the Derivative Litigation seek, among other things, unspecified damages and restitution for the Company from the individual defendants, the payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, and that the Company be directed to reform certain governance and internal procedures. The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty.

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 2022 for certain environmental claims up to $10,000 per occurrence and up to $50,000 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 condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019:

	As of March 31, 2020									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⁾		March 31, 2020		December 31, 2019
West Melbourne I, LLC - Phase I	50%	$	39,612	50%		$	19,806	Feb-2021	⁽²⁾	$	198	$	199
West Melbourne I, LLC - Phase II	50%		15,557	50%			7,779	Feb-2021	⁽²⁾		78		78
Port Orange I, LLC	50%		53,792	50%			26,896	Feb-2021	⁽²⁾		269		270
Ambassador Infrastructure, LLC	65%		9,360	100%			9,360	Aug-2020			101		101
Shoppes at Eagle Point, LLC	50%		35,189	35%	⁽³⁾		12,740	Oct-2020	⁽⁴⁾		127		127
EastGate Storage, LLC	50%		6,377	50%	⁽⁵⁾		3,250	Dec-2022			33		33
Self Storage at Mid Rivers, LLC	50%		5,803	50%	⁽⁶⁾		2,994	Apr-2023			30		30
Parkdale Self Storage, LLC	50%		4,878	100%	⁽⁷⁾		6,500	Jul-2024			65		65
Hamilton Place Self Storage, LLC	54%		2,485	100%	⁽⁸⁾		7,002	Sep-2024			70		70
Atlanta Outlet JV, LLC	50%		4,680	100%	⁽⁹⁾		4,680	Nov-2023			—		—
Louisville Outlet Shoppes, LLC	50%		9,182	100%	⁽¹⁰⁾		9,182	Jul-2020			—		—
Total guaranty liability										$	971	$	973

The Company has guaranteed the lease performance of York Town Center, LP ("YTC"), an unconsolidated affiliate in which the Company owns a 50% interest, under the terms of an agreement with a third party that owns property as part of York Town Center. Under the terms of that agreement, YTC is obligated to cause performance of the third party’s obligations as landlord under its lease with its sole tenant, including, but not limited to, provisions such as co-tenancy and exclusivity requirements. Should YTC fail to cause performance, then the tenant under the third party landlord’s lease may pursue certain remedies ranging from rights to terminate its lease to receiving reductions in rent. The Company has guaranteed YTC’s performance under this agreement up to a maximum of $22,000, which decreases by $800 annually until the guaranteed amount is reduced to $10,000. The maximum guaranteed obligation was $11,600 as of March 31, 2020. The Company entered into an agreement with its joint venture partner under which the joint venture partner has agreed to reimburse the Company 50% of any amounts it is obligated to fund under the guaranty. The Company did not include an obligation for this guaranty because it determined that the fair value of the guaranty was not material as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019.

During the three months ended March 31, 2020, the Company evaluated each guarantee 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 and performing, and if applicable, none of the loans that are guaranteed by the Company are in violation of their debt covenants, each operating property has positive cash flows that are sufficient to cover debt service and forecasted cash flows for each operating property do not indicate that there is more than a remote probability that the Company will be required to perform under each guaranty. Historically, the Company has not had to perform on any of its guarantees of unconsolidated affiliates’ debt. Based on current and future conditions, the Company does not expect to have to perform, and therefore did not record a credit loss for the three months ended March 31, 2020.