Bough also agreed to a request by plaintiffs’ attorneys for one-third of the settlement plus expense reimbursement, totaling $82.4 million.
Settlement value approaches $1 billion
Not only will the three settlements result in a total of $208.5 million in damages, the Anywhere and RE/MAX settlements will also be signed before Sitzer | Burnett went to trial in October, providing an “icebreaker” for further settlements, which so far total nearly $1 billion, according to Boff.
“Specifically, following the settlement between Anywhere, RE/MAX and Keller Williams, this Court granted preliminary approval to the National Association of REALTORS (‘NAR’), Compass, The Real Brokerage, At World Properties, Realty ONE Group and Douglas Elliman Settlement Agreement,” the order reads.
“Combined with the Anywhere, RE/MAX and Keller Williams settlements, these settlements provide for a total settlement of more than $600 million, with additional settlements announced bringing the total to more than $900 million.
“The NAR Settlement Agreement also provides the opportunity for various multiple listing services and brokerage firms to elect to join the Settlement Agreement, which may provide further financial compensation to the Settlement Class.”
Franchisor Settlement Plus NAR Transaction = “Substantial Benefit”
In addition, Bove noted that the changes in business practices in the settlement were “substantial benefits” to the settlement categories, including providing advice to brokers, franchisees and agents, “without a requirement that they must make an offer to a collaborator or that they must accept it” An offer of compensation from a collaborator”. The broker or if such an offer is made must be blanket, unconditional or one-sided” and disclose to potential home sellers and buyers that “agent commissions are not required by law and are fully negotiable.”
Bough noted that the additional practice changes in the NAR settlement will impact “the broader industry” and “provide substantial additional benefits to the settlement class.”
“The change in NAR’s practices prohibits the communication of any offers of compensation to partner brokerages on the MLS,” the order reads.
“As another example, the NAR Settlement Agreement prohibits circumvention of the MLS’s prohibition on communicating offers of compensation by prohibiting the aggregation of MLS information and offers of compensation on a public website. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires Anywhere, RE/MAX or Keller Williams to violate the NAR Practice changes.
Settlement category
To resolve claims against Anywhere and RE/MAX, the settlement class is “all persons who sold a home anywhere in the United States that was listed on the Multiple Listing Service and who paid a commission to any brokerage firm in connection with the sale of that home.” Return home within the following date range:
I. Moehrl MLS: March 6, 2015 to notification date;
2. Burnett MLS: April 29, 2014 to the notification date;
3. MLS PIN: December 17, 2016 to notification date;
4. All other MLS: February 1, 2020 to date of notification.
To resolve the claims against Keller Williams, the settlement categories are the same, but the “All Other MLS” category is dated “October 31, 2019 to the Notice Date.”
Nearly 200,000 claims have been received to date
Bough stressed that more than 95% of potential settlement class members had received direct notice of the settlement, and as of May 2, nearly 200,000 claims had been filed, but only 12 had objected to the deal.
“This is just the beginning of claims, as the claims deadline will be extended to May 9, 2025,” Boff wrote. “The extended claims period is valuable because additional settlements have been reached with other defendants covering the same settlement class (with slightly different class period lengths), and the notice process for those settlements will provide additional opportunities to submit claims.
“Compared with the massive notice program and the large number of claims, there were only 12 objectors and 61 opt-outs from the settlement class.”
Courts do not expect “perfection”
Boff dismissed all these objections.
“The standard applied by the court is whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, not perfection,” he wrote. “Class counsel has been diligently litigating this case for several years and is best positioned to determine the best degree of relief reasonably available to the class.”
He added that unwinding the settlement “would result in protracted, costly piecemeal litigation, the risk of inconsistent outcomes, and states reliving the past five years of litigation.”
While some opponents argue that the amount the franchisor defendants must pay is insufficient or that the settlement categories should not be larger than those originally proposed in the lawsuit, Boff disagrees, noting that courts “routinely certify settlement categories that are broader than those originally proposed in the lawsuit.”
“The record supports the view that settling defendants would not pursue settlements nationwide because doing so would expose them to potentially serious liability,” Boff added.
“Accordingly, they insist that the settlement class include all Multiple Listing Services, regardless of whether they are affiliated with NAR. In order to benefit from the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to a nationwide settlement.
“Conciliation is therefore not only in the best interests of the entire national class, but also in the best interests of the Burnett and More classes, since, among other things, reconciliation cannot be achieved on a piecemeal basis and the mere execution of the Burnett judgment would has bankrupted the settling defendant.
Bove also emphasized that the transactions obtained as much “reasonable” funds from the defendants as possible without causing them to go bankrupt, and that the plaintiffs are now able to obtain relief rather than risk a reversal on appeal or bankruptcy by the defendants.
“Prior to settlement, plaintiff retained a forensic accountant to determine each defendant’s ability to make payments while maintaining a viable business,” the order reads.
“This analysis is further complicated by the recent and prolonged downturn in the real estate market. The settlement agreements each represent a significant portion of the assets available to the settling defendants while still allowing them to continue operating.
“In contrast, the joint and several liability created by the verdict would be catastrophic for any defendant.”
Judge overrules Pulte’s objection
Regarding the objections raised by Pulte Group, Boff said final settlement approval would not require the allocation of the claims plan required by the homebuilder, and approval of such a plan would be a separate matter.
“Delaying the development of a distribution plan is particularly appropriate when there are multiple defendants, but only some of them settle, and additional settlements may increase the funds to be distributed,” Boff wrote.
In addition, Baugh noted that class members can obtain more information about the distribution process by contacting plaintiffs’ attorneys or the settlement fund administrator.
“For those class members who emailed and/or called to inquire about allocations, class counsel explained that it is unlikely that class members will receive the full value of their claims, but that settlement proceeds will be equitably distributed and reduced proportionately,” the order states. wrote.
“Class counsel further explained that there were other settlements that would benefit the class after the notice was issued, while others also anticipated that it would be premature to develop a detailed allocation formula or provide an estimate of how much each class member would recover. .
Bove also dismissed Pulte’s complaints about being unable to file bulk claims as “baseless,” noting that class counsel has worked with other home sellers who wanted to file multiple claims.
Home buyers who are also home sellers are rejected
Bove also dismissed objections raised on behalf of homebuyers in the Barton One case, aiming to preserve the ability to pursue their own claims.
“The record in this case demonstrates that in order to reach a settlement, a nationwide class settlement and release of all potential claims arising from the same alleged antitrust conspiracy is necessary,” Bove wrote.
“Disclaimers in antitrust direct purchaser settlements generally cover all claims, including indirect purchaser claims, that members of the settlement class may have against the settling defendants arising out of the same conspiracy.”
While Boff’s order does not end lawsuits filed by homebuyers, it does narrow the size of the potential classes in these cases because it does not allow people who buy and sell properties to bring claims for buyer’s damages or seller’s damages.
Named plaintiffs and their attorneys will be compensated
Plaintiffs who appear in commission proceedings will receive $15,000 for their services, or $25,000 if they also appear in Sitzer | Court. Burnett Trial.
“Settlement Class Representatives performed significant work in this case, including time-consuming gathering of facts and documents, assisting Class Counsel in understanding the details of their transactions, preparing and attending depositions, reviewing the Settlement Agreement, and, for some, attending and attending Settlement Agreement”. Testify at trial,” Baugh wrote.
“This work materially advances the litigation and protects the interests of the Settlement Class. In fact, these settlements would not have been possible without their time and efforts.”
Boff also granted a motion by plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking attorneys’ fees and costs equal to one-third of the settlement fund and reimbursement of nearly $13 million in costs.
“Class counsel invested considerable time and energy, necessarily interfering with other work,” Boff wrote. “In addition to the significant time it took to reach the settlement, class counsel also incurred $12,923,266.48 of out-of-pocket expenses for litigation as of the date of the preliminary settlement.
“This work was undertaken without any guarantee of payment. Furthermore, the likelihood of an early settlement of this case is low given that core practices of the real estate brokerage industry are under attack.”
Boff said the quality of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ opponents was “very favorable” to the amount sought.
“During the course of the litigation, class counsel faced off against no less than 20 well-respected law firms,” Boff wrote. “While Class Counsel’s team includes some of the most accomplished class action and trial attorneys in the country, Defendants also retain some of the most distinguished and respected defense attorneys in the country.”
Boff concluded his order by instructing attorneys to prepare a settlement fund distribution plan and submit it to the court for approval.
“The proposed allocation plan must be posted to https://www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com and emailed to all individuals submitting claims to provide those individuals an opportunity to comment on the plan,” the order reads.
Read Boff’s order:
Send an email to Andrea V. Brambila.
Like on Facebook | Follow me on twitter
