Berkshire Hathaway Affiliate Seeks Supreme Court Intervention in Real Estate Arbitration Dispute
HomeServices, a real estate brokerage entity, asserted in its filing that it should have been shielded from trial proceedings, contending that the involved sellers had previously agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, circumventing the courtroom. This lawsuit, which originated from the contentious NAR regulations mandating home sellers to compensate the buyer’s broker, has triggered a wave of legal challenges across the nation.
“Our appeal is rooted in the principles of the Federal Arbitration Act, which clearly mandates that arbitration agreements be honored as they are written,” a spokesperson for HomeServices emphasized in a statement.
The crux of the lawsuit revolved around the real estate industry’s practice necessitating sellers to pay commissions to buyer’s agents, allegedly fostering an environment where agents steer clients towards properties with higher commissions, oftentimes ranging between 5% to 6%. Commissions, traditionally, are divided between agents representing sellers and buyers.
HomeServices contended that sellers had indeed consented to arbitrate claims arising from the listing of residential properties for sale. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in September, prior to the trial, that the judge presiding over the Missouri case, rather than an arbitrator, should determine the applicability of arbitration to the contractual dispute.
The brokerage firm lamented the appeals court’s decision, characterizing it as an “erroneous” move that exposed HomeServices to an unwarranted class trial. Furthermore, the company asserted that federal courts are grappling with inconsistencies regarding the allocation of authority to decide which claims fall under the purview of arbitration.
In light of these developments, HomeServices urged the Supreme Court to expedite its intervention, advocating for resolution of the arbitration dispute before any appeals are made concerning the staggering $1.8 billion verdict. Throughout the legal proceedings, HomeServices and other defendants have vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI