After
months
of
uncertainty,
the
real
estate
industry
has
a
reason
to
celebrate,
at
least
a
little
bit.
Judge
Stephen
Bough
has
granted

final
approval
to
the

commission
lawsuit
settlement
agreements
reached
by

Anywhere,


RE/MAX
and


Keller
Williams
on
Thursday.

The
settlement
agreement
will
become
effective
following
any
appeals
process,
if
applicable.

As
part
of
their
settlement
agreements,
Anywhere,
RE/MAX
and
Keller
Williams
have
agreed
to
pay

$83.5
million,

$55
million
and

$70
million,
respectively.
In
addition,
the
brokerage
firms
also
agreed
to

various
policy
changes
including
provisions
to
no
longer
require
agents
to
be
members
of
the National
Association
of
Realtors or
follow NAR’s
Code
of
Ethics or
the
MLS
Handbook,
as
well
as
practice
changes,
including
that
the
firm
will
require
or
encourage
agents
to
make
it
clear
to
clients
that
commissions
are
negotiable,
that
agents
will
have
the
freedom
to
set
or
negotiate
commissions
as
they
see
fit,
and
that
agents
will
not
be
required
to
make
offers
of
compensation
or
accept
offers
of
compensation
from
cooperating
brokers.

The
final
approval
of
the
settlements
did
not
come
without
hiccups.
According
to
court
filings
fewer
than
60
settlement
class
members
filed
objections
to
the
settlements
with
the
court.
Of
the
27
million
email
notices
and

10
million-plus
postcard
notices
sent
out,
nearly
200,000
claims
have
been
filed
and
61
class
members
have
opted
out
of
the
settlement.

During
Thursday’s
hearing,
Judge
Bough
allowed
four
of
the
objecting
parties
to
speak
for
five
minutes
each.
These
parties
included


PulteGroup,
attorneys
from
law
firm

Knie
and
Shealy
who
are
representing
home
seller
plaintiffs
in

a
copycat
suit
in
South
Carolina,
the

Spring
Way
Center,
an
original
home
seller
plaintiff
in
the

Pennsylvania
copycat
suit,
and
attorneys
from

Korein
Tillery
LLC,
who
represented
James
Mullis,
a
plaintiff
in
the

Batton
home
buyer
commission
lawsuit.

In

a
filing
in
mid-April,
homebuilder
PulteGroup
explained
that
certain
“procedural
factors”
have
impacted
the
company’s
decision
to
remain
in
the
case’s
settlement
classes.
Additionally,
the
firm
noted
that
it
was
unsure
of
the
“magnitude”
of
its
potential
recovery,
as
well
as
the
work
that
would
be
required
to
receive
it,
and
whether
the
settlement
will
survive
due
process
considerations
are
key
questions
that
could
determine
the
company’s
ongoing
presence
in
the
class.

“Because
the
deadline
is
here
and
Pulte
has
seen
no
answers
to
these
questions,
Pulte
objects,”
the
filing
reads,
adding
that
the
parties
involved
have
not
made
the
information
available.

“Pulte
has
not
seen
any
information
about
class
size,
expected
claim
rate,
or
the
claim
administrator’s
evaluations
in
dividing
up
settlement
funds,”
the
filing
reads.
“Most
of
this
information
typically
would
be
provided
in
a
Plan
of
Allocation,
a
document
routinely
provided
before
the
opt-out
date.”

The
South
Carolina
objectors
took
a
different
tack
and
objected
to
some
of
the
financial
amounts
of
the
settlement.
In
mid-April,
attorneys
for
the
objectors
asked
the
court
for
permission
to
subpoena
financial
documents
from
Keller
Williams
“for
the
purpose
of
evaluating
the
objectors’
positions
regarding
any
continuing
objection
and
further
to
help
provide
the
court
with
valuable
evidence
in
ruling
on
whether
to
grant
final
approval
of
the
proposed
settlement
entered
into
by
and
between
Keller
Williams
Realty,
Inc.,
and
the
Plaintiffs.”

The
two
parties
have
since
gone
back
and
forth,
but
the
judge
did
not
rule
on
their
request
for
a
subpoena.

In
a
document
filed
on
Wednesday,
the
Spring
Way
Center,
supported
the
South
Carolina
objector’s
motion,
writing
that
it
was
objecting
to
the
“fairness
and
adequacy”
of
Anywhere’s
settlement
amount.
Anywhere
and
the
plaintiffs
in
the
Sitzer/Burnett
and
Moehrl
suit
used
the
testimony
of
Karl
Barth,
Esquire
to
refute
claims
about
the
adequacy
of
Anywhere’s
settlement
amount
made
by
the
South
Carolina
objector’s
expert,
economist
Charles
Alford.
In
its
filing,
the
Spring
Way
Center
states
that
it
believes
Barth’s
testimony
is
not
appropriate
because,
although
he
as
experience
as
a
Certified
Public
Accountant,
he
is
an
attorney
who
has
practiced
at
Hagens
Berman
Sobol
Shapiro
LLP,
the
firm
representing
the
Moehrl
plaintiffs,
for
over
20
years.

“It
must
be
emphasized
that
Plaintiffs’
counsel
could
have
engaged
an
outside
forensic
accountant
if
they
believed
it
appropriate
to
do
so—they
clearly
have
made
a
substantial
investment
in
experts
in
this
litigation,”
Spring
Way’s
filing
states.
“Their
failure
to
engage
an
outside
expert
is
therefore
a
tacit
admission
that
an
impartial
expert
would
not
be
able
to
rebut
Dr.
Alford’s
opinions.”

Finally,
Mullis,
who
bought
a
home
and
sold
a
home,
making
him
part
of
the
settlement
class,
as
well
as
a
Batton
plaintiff,
filed
his
objection
in
mid-April,
writing
that
the
court
should
only
approve
the
settlements
“if
the
settling
parties
expressly
carve
out
claims
asserted
in
the Batton action
from
the
definition
of
‘Released
Claims’
or
otherwise
clarify
that
the
settlements
do
not
release
damages
claims
related
to
transactions
in
which
class
members
purchased
homes,”
the
filing
states.
“If
not,
the
Court
should
reject
the
settlements
as
not
fair
and
reasonable
and
as
not
providing
adequate
representation
to
class
members
who
purchased
homes.”

In
addition
to
Mullis’
objection,
the
Batton
1
plaintiffs

filed
a
motion
for
a
temporary
restraining
order
and
preliminary
injunction,
on
Wednesday.
The
motion
sought
to
prevent Anywhere, Keller
Williams and
RE/MAX from
filing
a
proposed
order
granting
final
approval
of
their
settlement
agreements.

The
motion
was
filed
in
U.S.
District
Court
in
Chicago,
as
that
is
where
the
Batton
1
suit
is
being
heard.
On
Wednesday
afternoon,
Judge
Andrea
R.
Wood,
who
is
overseeing
the
Batton
suit
as
well
as
the
Moehrl
home
seller commission
lawsuit,

said
this
request
was
“neither
necessary
nor
appropriate.”

In
her
order,
Wood
wrote
that
the
plaintiffs’
“goal
is
to
prevent
the
fairness
hearing
duly
set
by
the
Burnett
court
from
going
forward
according
to
that
court’s
orders.
Such
extraordinary
action
would
be
inappropriate.”

In
their
motion,
the
Batton
plaintiffs
argued
that
the
three
settling
brokerage
firms
“did
not
reveal
their
intent
to
release
homebuyer
claims”
until
Friday,
May
3,
and
didn’t
reveal
they
planned
to
specifically
prevent
the
Batton
1
plaintiffs
from
pursuing
their
claims
until
Tuesday,
May
8.

When
the
settlement
agreements
were
initially
announced,
it
was
generally
understood
that
they
only
applied
to
claims
brought
by
home
sellers.
But
in
court
documents
filed
last
week,
Anywhere
revealed
that
they
had
“insisted
that
the
people
in
the
Settlement
Class
release
all
their
antitrust
claims
arising
from
the
same
alleged
conspiracy,
including
claims
they
could
assert
as
either
sellers
or
buyers.”

In

a
press
release
on
Thursday,
Anywhere
clarified
that
“releases
by
the
sell-side
class
members
will
not
eliminate
the
pending
buy-side
litigation,
but
will
reduce
the
size
of
the
potential,
as
yet
uncertified,
class
by
eliminating
claims
for
buy-side
damages
by
those
individuals
who
also
sold
a
property
and
are
covered
by
the
Anywhere
settlement.”

In
addition
to
RE/MAX,
Anywhere
and
Keller
Williams,
NAR,
 Douglas
Elliman,
 Realty
One
Group, At
World
Properties,

Compass, HomeServices
of
America and The
Real
Brokerage,
have
also
reached
settlement
agreements.
So
far,
the

NAR
settlement
is
the
only
one
that
has
been
granted

preliminary
approval.
Its
final
approval
hearing
is
slated
for
Nov.
26,
2024.

“We
are
pleased
to
hear
of
the
court’s
final
approval
of
our
settlement,”
Darryl
Frost,
a
Keller
Williams
spokesperson,
wrote
in
an
email.
“We
will
continue
to
focus
on
what
we
do
best:
empowering
real
estate
entrepreneurs
so
they
can
deliver
exceptional
value
to
their
clients.”

RE/MAX
CEO
Erik
Carlson
was
also
pleased
with
the
final
approval
news.

“Since
entering
into
the
settlement
last
fall,
RE/MAX
has
been
committed
to
obtaining
final
approval,”
Carlson
said
in
a
statement.
“We
are
thrilled
to
be
leading
the
way
in
moving
forward,
maintaining
our
focus
on
supporting
RE/MAX
affiliates
and
continuing
to
foster
greater
transparency
in
the
industry
on
behalf
of
homebuyers
and
sellers.”

Like
Carlson,
Anywhere
CEO
Ryan
Schneider
was
also
delighted
by
the
news.

“This
is
a
significant
milestone
on
our
path
to
put
these
claims
behind
us,
begin
to
implement
agreed
upon
practice
changes,
and
move
forward
with
our
affiliated
agents
and
franchisees
as,
together,
we
continue
helping
home
buyers
and
sellers
move
to
what’s
next,”
Schneider
said
in
a
statement.

This
story
is
developing.

Check
back
for
updates.

Related