Anywhere rejects Batton plaintiffs’ ‘reverse auction’ claims 

Attorneys representing Anywhere Real Estate have asked a judge to reject an injunction motion filed last week in the Batton case, which sought to block Anywhere from making a deal in another lawsuit. 

In late February, plaintiffs in the Batton antitrust case — in which homebuyers sued real estate brokerages and associations over inflated commissions — filed a motion to intervene after Anywhere proposed opting into a settlement in a similar lawsuit known as Tuccori. Both the Batton and Tuccori cases are proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In their Feb. 28 legal filing, Anywhere's attorneys noted that there are already rules in place to contest a settlement.

What Anywhere agreed to pay: In the proposed opt-in deal, Anywhere would pay just over $9.6 million into the settlement fund, which includes at least a dozen other brokerages. The deal would effectively put an end to Anywhere's involvement in the Batton case.

In their argument for an injunction, the Batton plaintiffs said Anywhere's opt-in deal should be scrutinized, suggesting it may be the result of a reverse auction and an effort to "end-run the Batton litigation."

Anywhere's argument against the injunction: In its Feb. 28 response, Anywhere attorneys noted that the opt-in settlement has to go through an approval process — and suggested the Batton plaintiffs raise their objections during that process in the Tuccori courtroom.

The filing also rejected the notion that a reverse auction took place, noting that negotiations were handled by a retired judge who was familiar with the case "and would not have tolerated improper behavior."

"Regardless, Anywhere has no qualms about any court overseeing the settlement approval process. The settlement Anywhere negotiated is fair, reasonable, and adequate," the filing said, adding that the review process "will show it to be so."