This story was co-published with The Atlantic.

INTRODUCTION

Related Articles

How to bulk home loan sales benefit hedge funds over homeowners

BUSINESS

11 things we learned investigating how the government sells mortgages to investors

READ

Sept. 29, 2015, 2:52 p.m.: This story has been updated and clarified to express that Oaktree Capital is an investment company that also manages hedge funds.

Julius Uwansc was in trouble with his mortgage after refinancing in 2009, just after the real estate bubble popped. Like millions of others, he found himself owing more on his house than it was worth.

The Nigerian-born father of four moved into his house on Richardson Road in Gwynn Oak, Maryland, in 2005. "We loved it because it has this big yard where the kids can play," Uwansc says.

But soon after closing on the loan, Uwansc began having trouble making payments. He believed he had worked out a loan modification with Bank of America in 2011 after signing the paperwork, but the bank disputed the terms Uwansc thought he had secured. When he didn't pay the amount the bank said he owed, it claimed he was in default.

Uwansc's mortgage was insured by the Federal Housing Administration, meaning if he failed to make payments, the bank would typically be paid the full value of what was left of the mortgage, plus costs associated with servicing the debt.

Bank of America filed for a claim and received payment. The mortgage was then transferred to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the FHA.

Normally at this point, instead of taking over the mortgage, HUD regulations would require the bank to work with the borrower during a pre-foreclosure stage. If there's no way to keep the homeowner in the home, HUD shepherds the property through the foreclosure process.

But not in this case.

During the presidential debate on Monday night, Hillary Clinton raised a 1973 federal lawsuit brought against Donald Trump and his company for alleged racial discrimination at Trump housing developments in New York.

The Justice Department sued Donald Trump, his father, Fred, and Trump Management in order to obtain a settlement in which Trump and his father would promise not to discriminate. The case eventually was settled two years later after Trump tried to countersue the Justice Department for $100 million for making false statements. Those allegations were dismissed by the court.

"Donald started his career, back in 1973, being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination - because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy," Clinton said on Monday night.

Clinton And Trump Clash In Tense First Presidential Debate

POLITICS

Clinton And Trump Clash In Tense First Presidential Debate

Trump responded to Clinton by emphasizing that the case was settled with no admission of guilt.

The Justice Department announced today the largest monetary payment ever obtained by the department in the settlement of a case alleging housing discrimination in the rental of apartments. Los Angeles apartment owner Donald T. Sterling has agreed to pay $2.725 million to settle allegations that he discriminated against African-Americans, Hispanics and families with children at apartment buildings he controls in Los Angeles. The settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer.

"Housing is a basic human need, and yet decades after passage of the Fair Housing Act, far too many still encounter barriers like discrimination. Particularly in times of economic distress and rising foreclosures, we must remain vigilant to ensure all individuals have equal access to housing," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The magnitude of this settlement should send a message to all landlords that we will vigorously pursue violations of the Fair Housing Act."

The lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department in August 2006, alleged that the defendants, Donald T. Sterling, his wife Rochelle Sterling and the Sterling Family Trust, engaged in discriminatory rental practices on the basis of race, national origin and familial status (having children under 18) at various apartment buildings that they own and manage in Los Angeles. Among other things, the suit alleged that the defendants discriminated against non-Korean tenants and prospective tenants at buildings the defendants owned in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles.

In court filings, for example, the United States presented evidence that the defendants' employees prepared internal reports that identified the race of tenants at properties the defendants purchased in Koreatown. Additionally, the defendants made statements to employees at Koreatown buildings indicating that African-Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants. The United States also presented expert analysis in court filings showing that the defendants rented to far fewer Hispanics and African-Americans in Koreatown which than would be expected based on income and other demographic characteristics.

The defendants, who manage their apartments under the name Beverly Hills Properties, own and manage approximately 119 apartment buildings comprising over 5,000 apartments in Los Angeles County. The settlement would also resolve two related lawsuits filed by former tenants at one of the properties. The two families, an African-American family and an interracial married couple with bi-racial children, alleged that the defendants demolished the private yards that had been part of their apartment and took other actions against them because of their race.

The settlement, which is memorialized in a proposed consent order that the parties have submitted to the court for approval, would require the defendants to pay a $100,000 civil penalty to the United States. Under the settlement, the defendants would also pay $2.625 million into a fund that would be used to pay monetary damages to persons who were harmed by the defendants' discriminatory practices, including the tenants in the two related lawsuits discussed above. Any money left over would go to further fair housing education or enforcement in Los Angeles. The terms of the distribution of the $2.625 million will be determined in a separate disbursement order that will be submitted by the United States for approval to the Court.

In addition to the payments in damages and civil penalties, the proposed consent order would require the defendants to take various steps to ensure non-discriminatory practices at their Los Angeles County rental properties. Among other things, the proposed consent order would:

* Enjoin the defendants from discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, and familial status;

* Require the defendants to implement a self-testing program over the next three years to monitor their employee's compliance with fair housing laws at their Los Angeles County properties. The testing would be conducted by an independent contractor that would report the results to the defendants and the United States;

* Require the defendants to maintain non-discriminatory practices and procedures; and

* Require the defendants to obtain fair housing training through an independent contractor for their employees who participate in renting, showing or managing apartments at the Los Angeles County properties.

A Maryland property management company is in trouble with the state over how it spent homeowner and condo fees. The Maryland Attorney General Consumer Protection Division filed charges against Evergreen Management, LLC for misappropriating assessments paid to homeowner associations and condominium associations. The owners of Evergreen, Jason Barry Oseroff and his late father Ivan Oseroff, are accused of taking nearly $2.5 million in funds and using the money for their own benefit over the years. Evergreen was hired to manage the books and records of HOAs, arrange and pay for contractors such as landscapers, prepare tax returns, attend meetings, and perform other functions. The company was hired by 13 associations in Maryland. Instead of providing the services for which they were hired, Oseroff withdrew unauthorized cash amounts, paid thousands for charges on his wife's credit card, made payments to himself, and funneled money from other HOAs to cover the bills of another. Evergreen also failed to provide bank records and invoices to homeowners when requested. The company is also accused of providing homeowners with false balance, expense, and income reports.

Amazingly, HOA management companies are completely unregulated and do not need any license. They can accumulate and manager millions of dollars in assessments and reserve funds without any state oversight. In Utah, there are fewer qualifications for managing HOAs than there are to do nails in a nail salon. The Utah CAI Legislative Action Committee tried for multiple years to introduce legislation that would require minimal training and bonding requirements for HOA managers. But, the Utah legislature stymied those efforts and would not allow the legislation to advance.

Thefts like that above have occurred in Utah HOAs multiple times. The lesson for Utah HOAs is simple. Carefully vet and hire experienced and reputable managers. Even then, someone in the Association must keep an eye on the money. Association boards should insist that their HOA funds are kept in distinct accounts in the name of the HOA and that bank statements for those accounts are provided each month. They should insist that only board members have signing authority for any significant transfers or checks and that they should have exclusive signing authority on reserve accounts. Occasionally, a call should be made to the bank to verify that the funds represented on bank statements are really in the accounts. With minimal oversight, it can be very difficult for a management company to steal HOA funds. Without oversight, it can be extremely easy.

The Utah CAI Legislative Action Committee is running HB 329, that will have new HOA laws. The bill will make changes (some minor and some more important) to various sections of the Condominium Ownership Act and the Community Association Act. After negotiations with various constituents, the bill is in the process of being shortened from its current form but will still include some changes that Utah community associations and homeowners' associations will need to know about. There will be some technical changes to Utah Code Ann. § 57-8-13.1 and § 57-8a-105 related to lien enforcement during periods when a homeowners' association has failed to register with the Department of Commerce. The basic obligation of all Utah HOAs to register with the department of commerce remains. Utah Code Ann. § 57-8-54 will undergo substantial changes related to owners requesting payoff information from their HOA or the HOA's manager. The lawyers at Morris Sperry suspect this provision will have further modifications from its existing form before passage. The rule's provisions in the community association act, Utah Code Ann. § 57-8a-217, will also undergo some significant changes. These changes include new definitional terms that could have significant effects on the validity of various HOA governing documents. In addition, these changes include limitations on the time period for challenging the adoption of a rule that does not comply with the notice and vetting periods allowed to owners before new rules are adopted in community associations. The lawyers at Morris Sperry are involved with these amendments through their service on the Utah CAI Legislative Action Committee and are closely watching the progress of these new 2019 Utah HOA laws. The time for this bill to get passed is slipping away, but they still remain a chance these provisions could go into law. Look for future updates from Morris Sperry on the status of this bill and the passage of other new laws in 2019 that affect HOAs.

On August 13, 2013, the Justice Department announced that the Townhomes of Kings Lake HOA Inc. (HOA) and Vanguard Management Group Inc. have agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The lawsuit alleged that the HOA adopted and both defendants enforced occupancy limits that discriminated against families with children at the Townhomes of Kings Lake, a 249-townhome community in Gibsonton, Florida. Under the proposed consent decree, which must still be approved by the Court, the defendants will pay $45,000 to the family that initiated the original complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), $85,000 into a victim fund to compensate other aggrieved families, and $20,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. In addition, the proposed consent decree prohibits the defendants from discriminating in the future against families with children and requires the defendants to receive training on the requirements of the FHA.

It could happen to even the most careful landlord or any property manager: everything's going along just fine, and then, BOOM, you receive a summons to court as a result of a housing discrimination-related lawsuit or enforcement action.

If the complainant is a tenant or someone you know, your first instinct may be to go give them a piece of your mind (over email, phone, or even in person). But that's the last thing you should do.

It's fair to be angry and scared-the direct federal fines for violations of the Fair Housing Act are usually $17,000 per violation; total settlements on race, familial status, age and sex discrimination cases often reach well into the six figures-but those overwhelming emotions are why you should go straight to your lawyer.

At this point in the process, there is no way to avoid how time-consuming, costly, and stressful it's going to be. But, there are some things you can do to make yourself a less tempting target for lawsuits, maximize the likelihood that a judge will drop the case, or set yourself up for a more favorable settlement.

Here are a few do's and don'ts that may ease the process:

DON'T:

Contact the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney yourself (in person, over the phone, or via text or email) without your attorney present.

Discuss any factual matters related to the case with anyone other than your attorney.

Speak to the media, even if there is interest unless your attorney has a chance to review any statements.

Waste time crafting your public statement. If the case attracts media attention, you want your message to be a part of the media cycle from the beginning, otherwise, your only representation in the media is "No comment."

Attempt to justify your actions to housing investigators, except through your attorney. If you are justified under the law, you'll still be justified when your attorney makes your points for you.

Retaliate. If you take negative action of any kind against a tenant who filed a housing discrimination complaint against you, you'll open yourself up to more fines and penalties.

Shut off the tenant's utilities, except as specifically provided for in your jurisdiction's eviction laws.

DO:

Invest time and effort into training on federal and state housing discrimination laws for you and your staff.

Train your staff on what "steering" is, and how to avoid it.

Train your staff on the source of income laws, if you are in a "source of income" jurisdiction.

Take discrimination and equal housing obligations seriously, especially if you're in a leadership position. The rest of the staff will follow suit.

Make sure your errors and omissions insurance is paid up.

Put your leasing/renting criteria in writing.

Develop a written tenant selection plan and stick to it. Include:

Income requirements

Minimum credit score

Criminal background requirements (i.e., no convictions in 3 years, no domestic violence convictions ever)

Occupancy restrictions/maximum number of individuals in a unit

Solid references from last two landlords, if applicable

The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division is responsible for the Departments' enforcement of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), along with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA), the land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.

Under the FHA, the Department of Justice may bring lawsuits where there is a reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination or where a denial of rights to a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. The Department of Justice also brings cases where a housing discrimination complaint has been investigated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD has issued a charge of discrimination, and one of the parties to the case has "elected" to go to federal court. In FHA cases, the Department can obtain injunctive relief, including affirmative requirements for training and policy changes, monetary damages and, in pattern or practice cases, civil penalties.

Several cases we have filed or resolved recently exemplify our efforts to ensure the availability of the housing opportunities guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act. (1) The complaints and settlement documents for the cases discussed in the text, as well as other cases handled by the Housing Section, can be found on the Housing Section's website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/caselist.php.

RALEIGH, April 28, 2017 - When fair housing advocates gather for Raleigh's 14th Annual Fair Housing Conference on April 28, they will have much to celebrate: national Fair Housing Month, the federal Fair Housing Act's 49th anniversary, and our nation's continuing commitment to the principle of equal housing for all.

Advocates from Legal Aid of North Carolina's Fair Housing Project will join the celebration, and will mark some milestones of their own: the Project's sixth anniversary and the $5.25 million in relief for victims of housing discrimination it has won over those six years.

Launched in 2011 with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Legal Aid's Fair Housing Project is the state's only full-service fair housing enforcement organization. The Project provides legal representation to victims, conducts undercover fair housing testing, and provides training and education programs on fair housing law to community advocates, landlords, and local government officials, among others.

The Project has brought cases in federal and state courts, and initiated administrative proceedings before HUD, the North Carolina Human Relations Commission and local human relations commissions across the state.

The Project has a small number of full-time staff but makes a big impact. Most of the $5.25 million in relief for victims came from recent settlements of three high-profile cases involving allegations of systemic sexual harassment, disability rights or racial discrimination. The three cases are:

The Fair Housing Project represented 16 women who had alleged that they experienced sexual harassment by employees of Four County Community Services, a non-profit organization running a subsidized housing assistance program in Scotland County. The settlement of the case in 2015 resulted in $1,070,000 in relief for the plaintiffs, as well as an additional $1,000,000 for other aggrieved persons represented by the U.S. Department of Justice in a related case. Learn more.

As a result of fair housing testing, the Project discovered what it believed to be violations of the Fair Housing Act's accessibility requirements for new multifamily housing and filed an administrative complaint with HUD regarding SkyHouse apartment buildings in Raleigh, Charlotte and other cities. The parties settled in September 2016, with the respondents agreeing to provide ramps and other accessibility modifications upon request to tenants with disabilities, as well as to provide $1,800,000 to be used to make accessibility modifications for low-income tenants with disabilities in North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Texas. Learn more.

As a result of the Project's lending testing program, it filed an administrative complaint with HUD regarding potential differences in treatment by Fidelity Bank based on race. As a result of the conciliation agreement reached in the case, Fidelity agreed to invest $1,000,000 over two years in low-income communities in which it operated. Learn more.

In addition to the millions of dollars secured for those impacted by fair housing violations, Legal Aid's Fair Housing Project has helped dozens of people with disabilities obtain reasonable accommodations from their landlords, allowing them to have full access and enjoyment of their homes. The Project has also obtained agreements from three property management companies and landlords affecting hundreds of rental units in which formal reasonable accommodation policies were adopted to ensure that the properties comply with federal and state fair housing law.

On August 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a notice asking for public comments regarding "streamlining and enhanc[ing]" HUD's "affirmatively furthering fair housing" (AFFH) regulation. Comments to HUD in response to the notice are due by October 15, 2018.

HUD's AFFH regulation was finalized on July 16, 2015, and was intended to provide guidance to recipients of HUD funding regarding their obligations to affirmatively further fair housing. The AFFH regulation provided state and local governments, as well as Public Housing Authorities, "with a specific planning approach to assist them in meeting their statutory obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act."

In January 2018, HUD had announced that it was "suspending" the AFFH rule and delaying implimentation of certain parts of it until at least October 2020. As a result, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and several other organizations filed a lawsuit against HUD and HUD Secretary Ben Carson in May 2018, alleging that HUD's actions violated federal procedures in its attempt to suspend the AFFH rule. That lawsuit remains pending, and in a statement, NFHA stated that its pending lawsuit is not affected by HUD's notice.

In its August notice, titled "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Streamlining and Enhancements," HUD stated that while it "is committed to its mission of achieving fair housing opportunity for all" its experience with the rule in the past three years "demonstrates that it is not fulfilling its purpose to be an efficient means for guiding meaningful action by program participants" and that a "new approach towards AFFH is required."

The notice states that HUD is soliciting comments on changes that will:

(1) Minimize regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to meet their legal obligations;

(2) create a process that is focused primarily on accomplishing positive results, rather than on performing analysis of community characteristics;

(3) provide for greater local control and innovation;

(4) seek to encourage actions that increase housing choice, including through greater housing supply; and

(5) more efficiently utilize HUD resources.

This is the second notice from HUD in two months that it is considering revising a major fair housing regulation. The prior notice, published on June 20, 2018, asked for public comments regarding reconsidering HUD's "disparate impact" regulation. Comments to HUD in response to the notice are due by August 20, 2018.

On January 28, 2019, the Village of Clemmons and Village of Clemmons Village Council agreed to settle a fair housing discrimination complaint brought by two affordable developers over the Village's refusal to allow an affordable housing community to be built. As part of the settlement, the Village has paid $150,000 to compensate the developers for their losses and for their attorney's fees. Members of the Village Council will also attend fair housing trainings sponsored by the North Carolina Human Relations Commission.

The complainants were represented by Legal Aid of North Carolina's Fair Housing Project and the North Carolina Justice Center. The case was filed with the North Carolina Human Relations Commission in December 2015 on behalf of Sylvan Road Partners, LLC and Allegro Investment Properties, LLC. The complaint alleged that the Clemmons Village Council's actions in 2015 violated the Federal Fair Housing Act and the North Carolina State Fair Housing Act, because the proposed housing community contained affordable housing units and because of the race of the perceived future occupants of the proposed development.

Lauren Brasil, a staff attorney at the Fair Housing Project stated, "Unlawful housing discrimination should not be a barrier to affordable housing development in North Carolina. The Fair Housing Project is committed to ensuring equal housing opportunities for all North Carolinians and enforcing our fair housing laws."

Jack Holtzman, senior staff attorney at the North Carolina Justice Center, noted, "It is important that local governments understand that their decisions regarding affordable housing developments are covered by the state and federal Fair Housing Acts, and that they face real consequences by violating those laws. We appreciate that the current Village Council has agreed to resolve this matter."

The federal Fair Housing Act and the North Carolina State Fair Housing Act both prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. In addition, North Carolina's law prohibits discrimination based on the fact that a development or proposed development contains affordable housing units.

Launched in 2011 with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Legal Aid's Fair Housing Project is the state's only full-service fair housing enforcement organization. The Project provides legal representation to victims of discrimination, conducts undercover fair housing testing, and provides training and education programs on fair housing law to community advocates, landlords, and local government officials, among others. The Project has brought cases in federal and state courts, and initiated administrative proceedings before HUD, the North Carolina Human Relations Commission and local human relations commissions across the state. Since its founding in 2011, the Project has helped obtain over $6.6 million in relief for victims of discrimination.

North Carolinians seeking information about their rights under the federal Fair Housing Act or who believe they are a victim of housing discrimination can call the Project's statewide toll-free helpline at 1-855-797-FAIR (3247). All conversations are completely confidential.

On May 15, 2019, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published new inflation-adjusted civil penalty amounts for individuals or entities that have been found to have violated a variety of different housing-related laws, including the federal Fair Housing Act. The new civil penalty amounts will apply to violations of the Fair Housing rules. 

August 03, 2019 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on behalf of those who acquired Realogy Holdings Corp. ("Realogy" or the "Company") (NYSE: RLGY) securities during the period from February 24, 2017 to May 22, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 9, 2019, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) Realogy was engaged in anticompetitive behavior by requiring property sellers to pay the commissions of a buyer's broker at an inflated rate; and (ii) Realogy's anticompetitive actions would prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to open an antitrust investigation into the real estate industry's practices regarding brokers' commissions.

On March 11, 2019, it was reported that a lawsuit had been filed against several realtors, including Realogy, which alleged that the companies were violating antitrust laws. On this news, Realogy's share price fell $0.21, or 1.7%, to close at $12.07 on March 12, 2019.

On April 18, 2019, it was reported that a second antitrust lawsuit had been filed. On this news, Realogy's share price fell $0.57, or 4.4%, to close at $12.32 on April 22, 2019.

On May 22, 2019, it was reported that the DOJ had been investigating Realogy for potential anti-competitive practices related to residential real estate brokerage. On this news, Realogy's share price fell $0.71, or 9%, over two trading sessions to close at $7.13 on May 23, 2019.

If you acquired Realogy securities during the Class Period, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Two Florida consumers have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Conservice, Inc. that claims the company charged an illegal monthly service fee for providing utility billing services.

Two Florida consumers have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Conservice, Inc. that claims the company charged an illegal monthly service fee for providing utility billing services. According to the complaint, the defendant was contracted by the owner of the plaintiffs' apartment building and paid to prepare monthly billing statements for tenants and unit owners. The plaintiffs allege, however, that Conservice charged them a monthly "service fee" of $4 even though it was already being paid by the building's owner for its services. The suit argues that this practice of "double-dipping" is illegal and that the plaintiffs never consented to or contracted with the defendant for this extra fee.

Erin Gilmore

erin@classaction.org

Erin works primarily on ClassAction.org's newswire, reporting on cases as they happen. She is an honest writer, a faithful friend, and a mediocre bassist.

The Chicago-based single-family home rental company backed by KKR and BlackRock has explored a stock offering with banks including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Home Partners of America, a single-family home rental company backed by KKR & Co. and BlackRock Inc., has explored an initial public offering with banks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The company is considering offering shares as early as next year, said some of the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. An IPO isn't guaranteed.

A representative for Home Partners of America declined to comment. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley representatives didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Chicago-based Home Partners of America has purchased over $2 billion in properties and leased them to more than 12,500 people who have the opportunity to buy the homes through a right-to-purchase program, according to its website. It was formerly known as Hyperion Homes Inc. and backed by Lewis Ranieri, the former Salomon Brothers banker who was a pioneer of mortgage securitization.

In a recent loan securitization backed by about 1,800 of the company's homes, 44 percent of tenants had a right-to-purchase contract, according to a report from Moody's Investors Service.

Home Partners is eyeing an IPO as single-family landlords report mixed results. High property prices and a low inventory of homes for sale have increased demand for rental houses, especially as older millennials grow out of apartments and start families. Positive macroeconomic trends have led to an influx of capital into closely held companies with single-family rental portfolios, including Amherst Holdings LLC, Cerberus Capital Management LP, and Pretium Partners LLC.

"The U.S. single-family housing market has begun to slow on lower affordability related to increases to interest expense," JMP Securities LLC analysts wrote in a Nov. 6 note. But single-family landlords "are positioned well from a cash-flow growth perspective as more families are pushed toward renting over owning."

Still, investors have punished the industry's biggest players for failing to wring greater efficiencies from their sprawling property portfolios. Shares in the biggest landlord, Invitation Homes Inc., which Blackstone Group LP took public in 2017, have fallen 9 percent this year, and American Homes 4 Rent, the second-largest, has dropped 7.6 percent, underperforming the Bloomberg U.S. REIT index, with a 2.5 percent decline.

Class-action lawsuit accuses NAR of inflating commission prices

Mantell Williams, VP of public relations and communications at NAR, responds to the class-action antitrust lawsuit filed against his company by a group of a home seller.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against major U.S. real estate Opens a New Window. firms, accused of violating antitrust laws.

According to the suit (Moerhl v National Association Realtors (NAR)) - filed in federal district court in Chicago - the defendants worked together to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes at "inflated" amounts.

"In a competitive market, the seller would pay nothing to the buyer broker, who would be paid instead by the buyer, and the commission paid by the seller would be set at a level to compensate the seller broker only," according to the suit.

The resulting effect of the rule is that agents want clients to buy higher-priced listings that are subject by the requirement, the suit alleges.

Typically, total broker compensation in the U.S. is about 6 percent, with half being awarded to the buyer broker. The suit argues that in international markets, homebuyers pay their own brokers less than half of the rates paid in the U.S.

The plaintiff, Christopher Moehrl, sold a home in Minnesota where, as part of the transaction, he paid a total broker commission of 6 percent - and 2.7 percent was paid to the buyer broker.

According to Benjamin D. Brown, an attorney for the plaintiff and a partner at Cohen Milstein - where he is co-chair of the firm's antitrust practice group - the lawsuit could really help Americans save money in the home selling process.

"This lawsuit could have profound effects on the real estate industry going forward, introducing true competition and ultimately saving people thousands of dollars when they sell their homes in the future," Brown said in a statement to FOX Business.

The class-action suit covers people who used one of 20 of the largest listing services over the course of five years across a number of major cities, including Dallas, Washington, D.C., Cleveland and Denver.

Last week, a lawsuit was filed by nationally-known class action attorneys Hagens Berman (representing plaintiff Christopher Moehrl of Minnesota) against the National Association of Realtors and the Big Four of the American real estate brokerage scene: Realogy, Home Services of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams.

The suit alleges that "Because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission or will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers' cooperation by offering a high commission. Absent this rule, buyer brokers would be paid by their clients and would compete to be retained by offering a lower commission." In other words, the suit claims that sellers are being illegally held up by being obliged to pay the buyer's side commission as well as the seller's side. The suit goes on to claim that this practice creates an anti-competitive atmosphere and thus violates antitrust law.

Does this suit have merit? Although most agents in Manhattan are not National Association of Realtors members and belong to a non- MLS residential listing sharing system, our fundamental practice, that sellers pay the entire commission which is then split between the seller's and buyer's agents, remains the same. So, the real question for contemplation, the question lurking behind every question of supposed antitrust abuses, revolves around the issue of consumer harm. Is the consumer actually injured by this practice?

The suit claims that the seller, by being obligated to offer buyer's agents a commission, is not in a position to determine the overall commission he pays since he doesn't want to lower his chances of attracting buyers' agents and, by extension, their buyers. This argument fails to acknowledge a number of realities of the marketplace in 2019. First and most importantly, buyers do their own searches. In my experience, the buyer's agent who refuses to show a property because it offers a lower commission is likely to lose both the buyer and any future referrals that buyer might have generated. This implies that buyer's agents feel motivated more so by high commissions than by satisfying their client's needs. In this era of absolute transparency in listings, woe betides the agent who deploys such a strategy. Not only are the vast majority of agents more ethical than that, but it's also a losing strategy.

Second, the transfer of the obligation to pay the buyer's agents from seller to buyer doesn't necessarily put more money into the seller's pocket. Perhaps even the opposite. The buyers, newly conscious of the amount they are paying their agent (whatever the commission rate) will lower the amount of their initial offer to reflect this new obligation. The money which pays both the seller and the brokers is all coming from the buyer anyway and checks for the commissions are almost always cut from the proceeds. It's actually always the buyer who is paying both commissions, but the deals are structured, so it doesn't feel that way to buyers. Once it DOES feel that way to them, they may bid differently, and not to the seller's ultimate benefit.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the nation's four largest real-estate broker franchisors - Realogy, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams - have been accused in a nationwide class-action lawsuit of cheating home sellers out of thousands of dollars each sale through an anticompetitive scheme to lock commission rates, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein.

If you sold your home through a real estate broker, find out more.

The antitrust lawsuit aimed at the real-estate kingpins states that NAR and the Big Four have worked in unison to adopt and implement a mandatory rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, a non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation (the "Buyer Broker Commission Rule") when listing a property on an MLS.

Most MLSs (including all MLSs at issue in this case) are controlled by local NAR associations, and access to such MLSs is conditioned on brokers following all mandatory rules set forth in NAR's Handbook on Multiple Listing Policy, including the Buyer Broker Commission Rule.

The conspiracy, plaintiffs allege, has saddled home sellers with a cost that would be borne by the buyer in a competitive market. Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker commission, or will show homes with higher commission offers first, sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket, non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers' cooperation by offering a high commission.

According to the lawsuit filed Mar. 6, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, total broker commissions in affected housing markets average between 5 and 6 percent, a substantially higher figure than in countries with competitive markets for real estate brokers. Plaintiffs in the case are also represented by attorneys at Handley Farah & Anderson, Justice Catalyst Law, Wright Marsh & Levy, and Teske Katz Kitzer & Rochel.

"When you compare commission rates in these affected housing markets to those in countries with competitive real-estate broker markets, the numbers tell a very clear story," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and an attorney representing home sellers in the class action. "We believe that NAR and the Big Four have devised a series of checks on broker commission rates to all but guarantee their goal of the restraining competition, costing home sellers thousands in excessive commissions paid on each sale."

Currently, total broker compensation in the United States is typically five to six percent of the home sales price, with approximately half of that amount-and increasingly more than half-paid to the buyer broker. Defendants' conspiracy has kept buyer broker commissions in the 2.5 to 3.0 percent range for many years despite the diminishing role of buyer brokers due to buyers independently identifying homes through online services and retaining buyer brokers only after they have found the home they wish to buy.

ARE YOU AFFECTED?

Attorneys say the following markets are affected: Austin, TX; Baltimore, MD; Charlotte, NC; Cleveland, OH; Colorado Springs, CO; Columbus, OH; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Fort Myers, FL; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Miami, FL; Milwaukee, WI; Minneapolis, MN; Orlando, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA; Salt Lake City, UT; San Antonio, TX; Sarasota, FL; Tampa, FL and Washington, DC.

The following real-estate broker franchisors are involved in the anti-competitive practices: Keller Williams Realty; RE/MAX Holdings Inc.; Realogy Holdings Corp.: Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate LLC, CENTURY 21, Coldwell Banker, ERA, Sotheby's; HomeServices of America Inc.: Berkshire Hathaway, RealtySouth, Long & Foster, Edina Realty & others.

An anti-trust class action lawsuit has been brought against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and four prominent real estate brokerage firms-Warren Buffett's HomeServices of America, Keller Williams, Realogy and RE/MAX-over allegations of inflated commission rates and anticompetitive practices.

The lawsuit, filed on Mar. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, accuses NAR and the four companies working together to maintain a lock-in 25 major markets that prevent competition from other brokerages and forces home sellers, home purchasers, and real estate brokers from negotiating over the commissions that sellers pay for the transaction.

"When you compare commission rates in these affected housing markets to those in countries with competitive real-estate broker markets, the numbers tell a very clear story," said Steve Berman, Managing Partner of Hagens Berman and an attorney representing home sellers in the class action. "We believe that NAR and the Big Four have devised a series of checks on broker commission rates to all but guarantee their goal of price-fixing, costing home sellers thousands in excessive commissions paid on each sale."

The lawsuit charges NAR and the companies with violating the Sherman Act by only allowing listing brokers to list a property on an MLS if the listing broker makes a unilateral, non-negotiable offer of compensation on the MLS to buyer brokers. Real estate brokers cannot disclose from disclosing commissions offered on MLS, the lawsuit adds, and also allows brokers to take both buyer and seller commissions if the buyer is not represented by a broker.

"Under these policies straight out of NAR's handbook, sellers suffer, and brokers reap the spoils," Berman said. "NAR and the Big Four are doing absolutely everything in their power to restrict and control real-estate broker commissions, and our antitrust team intends to put an end it."

Plaintiffs in the case are also represented by attorneys at Cohen Milstein, Handley Farah & Anderson, Justice Catalyst Law, Wright Marsh & Levy, and Teske Katz Kitzer & Roche

NAR, Realogy, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America hit with a class-action lawsuit

A new lawsuit claims the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) and four major real estate franchisors violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes and to pay an inflated amount.

Plaintiffs have filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois claiming that defendants NAR, Realogy, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America have conspired together around NAR's adoption and implementation of a rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer-broker compensation when listing a property on an MLS.

Real estate consultant and blogger Rob Hahn wrote a two-part analysis (Part 1 and Part 2) of the case in which he says, "The basic claim is that the MLS rule of unilateral offer of compensation is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. From the complaint: Defendants' conspiracy has centered around NAR's adoption and implementation of a rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, the non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation (the "Buyer Broker Commission Rule") when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service ("MLS").

A group of home sellers has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and some of the nation's largest brokerage firms, alleging antitrust violations. The brokerage firms named include Realogy (franchisor of Better Homes Real Estate, Century 21, Coldwell Banker, ERA Real Estate and Sotheby's brands), Home Services of America (an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway), Re/Max and Keller Williams.

The reach of the lawsuit is significant. Realogy's website indicates its brands have over 16,300 offices and approximate 300,000 independent sales associates. Keller Williams's website indicates as of 2017, it has approximately 940 locations and 155,000 agents, generating more than $300 billion in sales. HomeServices of America's website indicates it has 879 offices and 42,600 agents with a sales volume of $137.6 billion. Re/Max's website discloses a total of 120,000 agents worldwide. The outcome of this case could have a groundbreaking impact on how listing and selling agents are compensated for their services.

The lawsuit was filed on March 6, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and alleges the NAR and brokerage firms violated federal antitrust laws in implementing rules that keep commissions at 5% or 6% per transaction. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants implemented policies that are aimed at keeping buyers and sellers from negotiating commissions. Specifically, the Plaintiffs cite to the NAR's Buyer Broker Commission Rule, which it adopted in 1996 as part of its MLS policy handbook. The Rule provides when a listing agent files a listing on the MLS, the agent is making a blanket unilateral offer of compensation to other MLS participants. The Rule requires listing agents to specify on each listing the amount of cooperative compensation being offered. If compensation in the form of a percentage of the gross selling price or dollar amount is not offered, the MLS is prohibited from accepting listings. The Plaintiffs allege the brokerage firms have participated in the conspiracy by requiring their agents comply with the NAR rules, supervising NAR's adoption, maintenance and enforcement of the rules, and influencing local realtor associations to enforce the NAR rules.

NAR responds, claims there is no such rule

A class-action lawsuit is seeking to upend the way homes are listed for sale and the commissions paid to agents. The goal, say the plaintiffs, is to make the home selling more affordable by challenging how agents share commissions on local Multiple Listings Services known as the MLS.

In Moerhl v National Association Realtors (NAR), filed in Chicago on March 6 by home seller Christopher Moehrl, the defendants are the National Association of Realtors, 20 of the biggest MLSs throughout the country and four of the largest real estate broker franchisors: Realogy, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and Keller Williams Realty. They are accused of violating federal antitrust laws by conspiring to require home sellers to pay buyer commissions at an inflated amount.

The focus, the suit claims, is on NAR's "Buyer Broker Commission Rule," which, according to the complaint, requires "all brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation" in order to participate in the MLS, which is what brokers traditionally use to list for-sale properties. Brokers who don't participate in the MLS can't effectively market their properties, according to the lawsuit.

"Essentially what the case boils down to is the rules of the game that's set up by NAR and its board in terms of how homes are sold and how broker relationships work with clients. Those rules are really mandatory. There's one MLS in each of the jurisdictions that's an issue in the case and that MLS has, as a requirement, that you adhere to NAR's rules," says Benjamin Brown, a partner at Cohen Milstein in the firm's antitrust practice group and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on this suit.

NAR responds, claims there is no such rule

NAR, however, has no such "Buyer Broker Commission Rule" as described in the lawsuit, according to Mantill Williams, vice president of communications at NAR.

"The only requirement imposed by NAR rule is that the listing broker advises all other MLS participants what the amount of compensation to the buyer's broker will be," Williams says. "That amount is determined by the seller and the seller's broker - not by NAR or the MLS. It can be expressed as a percentage of the sale price or as a fixed dollar amount - as low as $1. Under NAR policy, a buyer's broker is free to negotiate the amount of the commission with the seller's broker."

Sellers can negotiate the amount of commission they pay to their own agents. Although sellers traditionally pay the commission, that commission is typically split with the buyer's agent. The seller might end up passing on the commission costs to the buyer in the form of a higher listing price.

For most sellers, paying a 5 or 6 percent commission is the standard. On a $300,000 home sale with a 6 percent broker commission, a seller would pay $18,000, which is then split with the buyer's agent. This is a standard scenario that many sellers might assume is carved in stone.

There are two problems with this system, according to the complaint. First, since the buyer's agent will get half of the commission it may induce them to cherry-pick listings to show those with the highest commissions.

The second alleged problem is that the commissions presume full-service work on the parts of both agents. For selling agents, that means listing and marketing the property, vetting buyers and negotiating the sale price, among other services. For the buyer's agent, that includes finding suitable properties, scheduling showings, and negotiating contracts.

The Antitrust Laws

Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.

Here is an overview of the three core federal antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

Ocwen Loan Servicing and Cross Country Home Services have agreed to pay more than $26 million to resolve claims that they deceived customers with fake checks.

The companies allegedly sent small value checks to Ocwen, GMAC, and Homeward Residential mortgage customers. When the mortgage customers cashed the checks, they were reportedly enrolled into a home warranty or service plan from Cross Country Home Services without knowing it.

The recent settlement will benefit Ocwen, GMAC, and Homeward Residential customers who: were enrolled in a Cross Country warranty/home service plan between Aug. 6, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2013, after depositing one of the checks; made one or more payments on the plan; never made a claim under the plan; never received a refund for the premiums they paid.

Several plaintiffs filed their class-action lawsuit against Ocwen and Cross Country in August 2013. The fake check class action lawsuit was amended three times in November 2013, November 2014, and April 2017.

The plaintiffs argued that Ocwen and Cross Country intentionally deceived customers with their check scheme. They claimed that the companies owed their customers a refund for the premiums paid into the Cross Country services.

The common industry practice of cold calling prospects to find new business is being challenged in a class-action complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in California.

Jorge Valdes from Tustin, Calif., has filed a complaint against Coldwell Banker Real Estate and NRT asking the court to stop the companies from directing its real estate professionals to call consumers without their consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit alleges the defendants are making unsolicited, automatically dialed calls to consumers that go against the Federal Trade Commission's National Do Not Call Registry.

In the complaint, Valdes alleges that the real estate companies provide specific instructions to its real estate professionals to call consumers who have previously listed their properties for sale with other real estate professionals. Valdes also alleges that the companies are instructing real estate professionals to make unsolicited cold calls to obtain new listings and that the companies provide agents with telephone numbers and other analytics to identify leads as well as scripts to guide the conversations. The lawsuit questions the technology services that are helping real estate professionals gain numbers to call.

Federal Trade Commission: National Do Not Call Registry Rules

Valdes says in the complaint that he received unwanted auto-dialed calls from three different Coldwell Banker and NRT real estate professionals to his cell phone, which is registered on the Do Not Call list. Valdes had a property listed on the MLS in 2018 with a real estate professional, but the listing was removed after his home did not sell. He says his cell phone number was never associated with any of the publicly listed information about the property.

Valdes' class-action lawsuit stretches to anyone who has also received unsolicited calls over the past four years from the companies. The complaint is seeking a jury trial and a minimum of $500 in damages and up to $1,500 in damages for each violation.

Coldwell Banker and NRT have released the following joint statement in response: "We received the lawsuit and are evaluating. As consistent with our policy, we will not comment further on pending litigation."

The lawsuit follows on the heels of another complaint recently filed against two South Florida brokerages by consumers who said they received a flood of unwanted automated text services about properties. Those lawsuits are asking the court for class-action status, which if granted, could potentially cover anyone in the U.S. who has received an automated text message from the brokerages in the last four years.

The same firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against Zillow and frequently announces it's investigating other public companies.

Zillow Sues Rival Compass Alleging IP Theft And Breach Of Contract Over Its Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, And Cloud Computing Real Estate TechnologiesSwitching from defense to offense, Zillow Group, Inc., best known for its residential real estate marketplace technology, recently filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging a number of both federal and state legal violations against competitor Urban Compass, Inc., Compass Washington, LLC, and former employee turned current Compass employee Robert Ming-Yu Chen. At the federal level, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, Zillow alleges trade secret misappropriation of its machine learning, search relevance, and user personalization technologies. At the state level, Zillow alleges trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual relations, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment arising under the laws of the State of Washington.

In its Complaint filed on April 19, 2019, Zillow alleges Compass engaged in "unlawful business practices" and "calculated theft" by unlawfully hiring Zillow employees using a "poach and extract model" in order to obtain Zillow's trade secrets. (see Complaint, pp. 1-2, 14). In particular, Zillow alleges Compass incited Mr. Chen-Zillow's former Senior Director of Machine Learning and the current Director of Engineering at Compass-to breach his employment agreement containing confidentiality, non-compete, and non-disclosure clauses, in order to obtain Zillow's proprietary machine learning algorithms and models which Mr. Chen helped develop. To support their allegations, Zillow provides in their complaint side-by-side screenshots that highlight the similarities between Zillow's and Compass's online and mobile tool offerings. In addition, Zillow points to evidence that Mr. Chen "took screenshots of propriety trade secret information and deleted this information in the weeks before his departure from Zillow, including proprietary wireframes and a proposed regional launch timeline related to certain Zillow services." (see Complaint, p. 15). In addition to damages, Zillow is also seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to protect its trade secrets. (see Complaint, p. 28)

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is making consumers aware that on April 3, 2019, a class-action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC ("Coldwell Banker") and NRT LLC ("NRT") to stop Coldwell Banker and NRT ". . . from directing realtors to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ['TCPA'] by making unsolicited auto-dialed calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the national Do Not Call registry ("DNC"), and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the conduct of Defendants. . . ." [Emphasis in original]

According to the class action complaint,

. . . Coldwell Banker and NRT direct realtors to cold-call consumers to sell them Coldwell Banker's realty services. This includes specific instructions to call consumers who have previously listed their properties for sale with other realtors, but whose listings with those other realtors expired without a sale of the property.

In addition to directly instructing realtors to make unsolicited cold calls to obtain listings, Coldwell Banker and NRT provide realtors with telephone numbers and other analytics for identifying leads to cold call, scripts for the cold calls, and preferred pricing from Coldwell Banker's partner vendors for other cold calling related training and products, including autodialers.

Ultimately, Coldwell Banker's and NRT's marketing plan for NRT realtors involves cold calling consumers, with a focus on calling consumers who have recently expired property listings. This is troubling since cold calling consumers without consent violates the TCPA. [Emphasis added]

Allegedly, the "marketing plan" of Coldwell Banker ". . . resulted in [the Plaintiff] receiving unsolicited, autodialed calls from [three] different Coldwell Banker and NRT realtors to his cellular phone number registered on the DNC. This all occurred after the multiple listing service listing for Plaintiff's property, which was maintained by Plaintiff's former realtor and which did not include any of Plaintiff's telephone numbers, was removed from the multiple listing service without Plaintiff having sold his home."

CHICAGO (CN) - A group of recent home sellers filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against multiple realty agencies in federal court in Chicago Wednesday, alleging the agencies conspired to develop a commission scheme that significantly inflated the cost of selling their homes.

The 30-page complaint claims the defendants, including The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings and RE/MAX Holdings, conspired "to require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated amount, in violation of federal antitrust law."

The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy has centered around the National Association of Realtors' "adoption and implementation of a rule that requires all brokers to make a blanket, a non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation...when listing a property on a Multiple Listing Service," or MLS.

This makes the market non-competitive, according to the complaint, since the cost of paying a commission to the buyer broker is a cost that would normally fall on the home buyer in an ordinary, competitive market. And since the defendants have control of the local MLS, which is the key database of region-specific property listings on which most homes in the United States are sold, this gives them unfair leverage and market power.

The lawsuit also notes that "in furtherance of the conspiracy" The National Association of Realtors "advises MLS's to enter into non-compete agreements with third-party websites, such as Zillow, so that those websites do not become competitive rivals to MLS's

The criminal complaint against Thompson paints a picture of a less-than-careful suspect.

Thompson posted the information on GitHub, using her full first, middle and last name, the complaint says. She also boasted on social media that she had Capital One information.

In a channel on Slack, a chat service often used by businesses as well as other groups, Thompson explained the method she used to break into Capital One, the Justice Department alleges. She claimed to use a special command to extract files in a Capital One directory stored on Amazon's servers.

"I wanna get it off my server that's why Im archiving all of it lol," Thompson allegedly posted on Slack. One person was alarmed by what Thompson found, writing that the information was "sketchy," adding, "don't go to jail plz."

Thompson made little effort to disguise her identity. She allegedly used the screen name "erratic" on Slack, which was the same handle she used on a Twitter account and a Meetup chatroom page.

The FBI special agent who investigated Thompson believes Thompson tweeted that she wanted to distribute Social Security numbers along with full names and dates of birth.

One person who saw the information on GitHub notified Capital One of the "leaked data" belonging to the company. Capital One notified the FBI, and an agent searched Thompson's residence on Monday. They found devices in her possession that reference Capital One and Amazon as well as other entities that may have been targets of attempted - or actual -- breaches.

The complaint indicates Thompson "recognizes that she has acted illegally."

BLAMEWORTHY

Lew Ranieri

Meet the father of mortgage-backed bonds. In the late 1970s, the college dropout and Salomon trader coined the term securitization to name a tidy bit of financial alchemy in which home loans were packaged together by Wall Street firms and sold to institutional investors. In 1984 Ranieri boasted that his mortgage-trading desk "made more money than all the rest of Wall Street combined." The good times rolled: as homeownership exploded in the early '00s, the mortgage-bond business inflated Wall Street's bottom line. So the firms placed even bigger bets on these securities. But when subprime borrowers started missing payments, the mortgage market stalled and bond prices collapsed. Investment banks, overexposed to the toxic assets, closed their doors. Investors lost fortunes.

See TIME's Wall Street covers.

Most mortgage professionals are trustworthy and provide a valuable service, helping you to buy or refinance your home. But dishonest or "predatory" lenders do exist and engage in practices that can put you at risk of losing your home to foreclosure. Learn how to protect yourself from and report predatory lending and loan fraud.

How to Protect Yourself

Learn about the types of scams that predatory lenders use to trick you. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has counselors available across the country to help you navigate mortgage professionals, look out for scams, and choose the right loan type for you.

Predatory lenders may try to:

• Sell properties for much more than they are worth using false appraisals
• Encourage borrowers to lie about their income, expenses, or cash available for down payments in order to get a loan
• Knowingly lend more money than a borrower can afford to repay
• Charge high-interest rates to borrowers based on their race or national origin and not on their credit history
• Charge fees for unnecessary or nonexistent products and services

https://www.nar.realtor/videos/video-wire-fraud-alert-for-buyers