Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

Client Alert

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.

The Plaintiffs argument pivoted on the requirement that the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) requires that agents could only list properties for sale if they provided the commission for Buyer as a percentage of the gross sale price of the property.  No provision or exception is allowed for Sellers or Seller’s agents willing to pay a flat fee to a Buyer’s agent, for Buyer’s paying their realtor’s commission, or for any other variation in the payment structure.

Like many markets throughout the United States, the Sellers lived in areas where the compensation for Buyers’ agents is solely derived based on the commission from the properties buyers actually purchase. As such, it behooves them to show only those properties that offer better commission to the buyers. Additionally, realtors agree that they cannot attempt to negotiate or modify commission arrangements through the purchase-sale contract. The Plaintiffs contended, while sellers are still able to negotiate the percentage commission in theory, any attempt to meaningfully do so could significantly undermine the seller’s effort as it can affect whether their property is presented to Buyers and artificially restraining price competition among real estate brokerages.

Re/Max Holdings, Inc., one of the defendants, ultimately entered into a settlement agreement for $55 million, and they further agreed to change their business practices to no longer require their agents to be members of NAR nor have minimum commission requirements. Anywhere Real Estate Inc. (parent company for Better Homes and Garden Real Estate, Century 21, Coldwell Bank Realty, Corcoran, and Sotheby’s International Realty) was another defendant in the case. They entered into a $83.5 million settlement that also prohibits them and their brokerages from sorting home listings by commission amount unless requested by the client.

On October 31, 2023, the National Association of Realtors, HomeServices of America, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. received a verdict against them for $5.6 Billion.  The case has created additional ripple effects as at least 11 different suits have been filed in courts across the nation, including Florida, New York, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Additionally, the Justice Department argued to re-open its investigation against the National Association of Realtors in front of an appellate court panel in Washington DC in mid-December 2023.

Even though it may be years before the Burnett verdict or any of the new cases result in a systemic change in the payment system for realtors, the landscape of real estate sales and commissions is already shifting as a result of these cases.  Immediate effects include the changes in policies that Re/Max and Anywhere’s brokerage have agreed to as part of their settlement agreement; RedFin requiring its brokers and agents to withdraw from NAR; and, the “clarification” released from NAR that brokers can list commissions at any amount, including $0. While some realtor boards are changing its policies, including the Real Estate Board of New York and Miami Association of Realtors, 2024 will likely see additional changes once the judge’s order detailing what injunctive relief he is granting is released and takes effect, expected no sooner than April 2024.

For more information, please contact BMD Senior Counsel Audrey Wanich at aswanich@bmdpl.com.


International Sales Contracts - COVID-19 Pandemic and Force Majeure

Identity Protection PIN Available to ALL Taxpayers in January

Beginning in January 2021, the IRS will allow all taxpayers who can properly verify his/her identity to obtain an Identity Protection PIN. An Identity Protection PIN (“IP PIN”) is a six digit number assigned to a specific taxpayer to assist in preventing the misuse of a taxpayer’s social security number on fraudulent federal tax returns. Previously, only confirmed victims of identity theft who resolved his/her tax issues with the IRS were eligible for an IP PIN.

Updates for Employers Regarding Medical Marijuana

In 2020, the momentum for marijuana legalization and decriminalization continued. In the November elections, five more states legalized either medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, or both. Although marijuana remains illegal in any form under federal law, just last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to decriminalize marijuana usage at the federal level. It's unlikely that the Senate will approve of that, but it is another milestone in what has been a rapidly shifting landscape over the last decade. Given the patchwork of state laws regarding medical and recreational marijuana, widely varied approaches for workplace protections, and the total federal ban, it can be difficult for employers to know how to deal with this issue.

Vaccination Considerations for Employers

Today, three Covid-19 vaccines have tested as highly effective (90%+ efficacy) and are advancing in the process for emergency use. This is especially welcome news in Ohio, which has skyrocketing cases and our strategic response has been to turn the entire state into the small town of Bomont with strict curfews and bans on social gatherings.

Did You Receive More than $750,000 in Provider Relief Funds?

The Provider Relief Funds (“PRF”) - authorized under the CARES Act - has been a vital tool for health care providers during the COVID-19 public health emergency. These funds have allowed providers to stay open and continue to offer care during these pressing times. While helpful, these funds do come with several important obligations. First, fund recipients are required to comply with certain record-keeping requirements as well as comply with certain balance billing prohibitions. See our Client Alert. Second, fund recipients are required to report their intent, use of funds, and other data elements, which helps promote transparency to the federal government. Please see our Client Alert on provider relief fund reporting requirements. Third, and perhaps a new concept for many providers, fund recipients of more than $750,000 must undergo a “single audit” to ensure program compliance and appropriate use of funds.