Company: HOUS
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001398987-25-000108
Chunk: 66

Company: Anywhere Real Estate Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-08
Form: 10-Q
Item: Item 8
Chunk 66
---
 respective agents that Anywhere has no rule requiring offers of compensation to buyer brokers; prohibiting Company-owned brokerages (and recommending to franchisees) and agents from using technology (or manually) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; eliminating any minimum client commission for Company-owned brokerages; and refraining from adopting any requirement that Company-owned brokerages, franchisees or their respective agents belong to the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) or follow NAR’s Code of Ethics or MLS handbook. The practice changes are to take place no later than six months after the Anywhere Settlement receives final court approval and all appellate rights are exhausted.In addition, since late October 2023, dozens of copycat additional lawsuits with similar or related claims have been filed against various real estate brokerages, NAR, MLSs, and/or state and local Realtor associations, about a third of which name Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees. In those cases, plaintiffs have generally either agreed to dismiss or stay the actions against Anywhere, its subsidiaries or franchisees pending the conclusion of the appeals of the trial court's grant of final approval of the Anywhere Settlement.Separately, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of home buyers (instead of sellers) captioned Batton, Bolton, Brace, Kim, James, Mullis, Bisbicos and Parsons v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division) was filed on January 25, 

21

2021 ("Batton", formerly captioned as Leeder), in which the plaintiffs take issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer-broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl, Burnett and Nosalek matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers), and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses. The only claims remaining outstanding are state law claims. The Company's motion to dismiss has been denied. The Company disputes the allegations against it in this case, believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs’ claims