XML 83 R62.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.1
Commitments And Contingencies (Details)
$ in Thousands
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
USD ($)
Dec. 31, 2018
USD ($)
Jul. 31, 2006
Independent_Companies
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]      
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Litigation
The Company is involved in claims, legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution and governmental inquiries related to alleged contract disputes, business practices, intellectual property and other commercial, employment, regulatory and tax matters. Examples of such matters include but are not limited to allegations:
•
that independent residential real estate sales agents engaged by NRT or by affiliated franchisees—under certain state or federal laws—are potentially employees instead of independent contractors, and they or regulators therefore may bring claims against NRT for breach of contract, wage and hour classification claims, wrongful discharge, unemployment and workers' compensation and could seek benefits, back wages, overtime, indemnification, penalties related to classification practices and expense reimbursement available to employees or similar claims against our franchise operations as an alleged joint employer of an affiliated franchisee’s independent sales agents;
•
concerning other employment law matters, including wage and hour claims and retaliation claims;
•
concerning anti-trust and anti-competition matters;
•
that the Company is vicariously liable for the acts of franchisees under theories of actual or apparent agency;
•
by current or former franchisees that franchise agreements were breached including improper terminations;
•
concerning claims for alleged RESPA or state real estate law violations;
•
concerning claims generally against the company owned brokerage operations for negligence, misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the performance of real estate brokerage or other professional services as well as other brokerage claims associated with listing information and property history;
•
related to copyright law, including infringement actions alleging improper use of copyrighted photographs on websites or in marketing materials without consent of the copyright holder;
•
concerning claims generally against the title company contending that, as the escrow company, the company knew or should have known that a transaction was fraudulent or concerning other title defects or settlement errors;
•
concerning information security and cyber-crime, including claims under new and emerging data privacy laws related to the protection of customer, employee or third-party information, as well as those related to the diversion of homesale transaction closing funds; and
•
those related to general fraud claims.
Real Estate Business Litigation
Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (California Superior Court for the County of Alameda). This is a putative class action complaint filed on December 20, 2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing business as Century 21 M&M (“Century 21 M&M”). The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real Estate (“Century 21”), as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in California. The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based on the alleged violations described above.
On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert a claim pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). The PAGA claim included in the amended complaint are substantively similar to those asserted in the original complaint. Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional penalties. In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of the non-PAGA claims, to stay the PAGA claim pending resolution of the arbitrable claims and to change venue.
Fenley v. Realogy Franchise Group LLC, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., Wish Properties, Inc. and DOES 1-100 (Superior Court of California, Kern County). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 25, 2019 by plaintiff Elizabeth Fenley against Wish Properties, Inc, a Sotheby’s International Realty independently-owned franchisee doing business as Wish Sotheby’s International Realty (“Wish SIR”). The complaint also names Realogy Franchise Group LLC and Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, as alleged joint employers of the franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially include all agents in California affiliated with any Realogy Franchise Group brand. The plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly responsible for misclassifying Wish SIR’s agents as independent contractors and failed to reimburse for business expenses, provide accurate wage statements and timely pay wages, all in violation of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts an unfair business practice claim based on the violations previously described.
These cases raise significant and various previously unlitigated claims and the Whitlach PAGA claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating uncertainties.
Moehrl v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). This is a putative class action complaint filed on March 6, 2019 by plaintiff Christopher Moehrl against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers regarding the setting and payment of the buyer broker commission. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. The Company was served with the complaint on March 21, 2019. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in the case, which has yet to be briefed or decided by the court.
Sawbill Strategic, Inc. v. The National Association of Realtors, Homeservices of America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., and RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). This is a putative class action seeking to certify the same class, based on the same allegations and against the same defendants as the Moehrl litigation.  On April 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate the Sawbill and Moehrl litigation.
Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Sawbill and Moehrl litigations. The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to the State of Missouri, and includes an additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint.
The Company disputes these allegations, believes it has complied with all applicable laws and regulations and will vigorously defend these actions. Given the early stages of each of these cases, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for this litigation.
The Company is involved in certain other claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business. Such litigation, regulatory actions and other proceedings may include, but are not limited to, actions relating to intellectual property, commercial arrangements, franchising arrangements, the fiduciary duties of brokers, actions against our title company alleging it knew or should have known that others were committing mortgage fraud, standard brokerage disputes like the failure to disclose accurate square footage or hidden defects in the property such as mold, vicarious liability based upon conduct of individuals or entities outside of our control, including franchisees and independent sales agents, antitrust
and anti-competition claims, general fraud claims (including wire fraud associated with third-party diversion of funds from a brokerage transaction), employment law claims, including claims challenging the classification of our sales agents as independent contractors, wage and hour classification claims and claims alleging violations of RESPA or state consumer fraud statutes. While the results of such claims and legal actions cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe based on information currently available to us that the final outcome of current proceedings against the Company will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, with the increasing requirements resulting from government laws and regulations concerning data breach notifications and data privacy and protection obligations, claims associated with these laws may become more common.
* * *
The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for legal matters as appropriate. The Company records litigation accruals for legal matters which are both probable and estimable.
Litigation and other disputes are inherently unpredictable and subject to substantial uncertainties and unfavorable resolutions could occur. In addition, class action lawsuits can be costly to defend and, depending on the class size and claims, could be costly to settle.  As such, the Company could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims with liability that are materially in excess of amounts accrued and these settlements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular period.
Cendant Corporate Liabilities and Guarantees to Cendant and Affiliates
Realogy Group (then Realogy Corporation) separated from Cendant on July 31, 2006 (the "Separation"), pursuant to a plan by Cendant (now known as Avis Budget Group, Inc.) to separate into four independent companies—one for each of Cendant's business units—real estate services (Realogy Group), travel distribution services ("Travelport"), hospitality services, including timeshare resorts ("Wyndham Worldwide"), and vehicle rental ("Avis Budget Group"). Pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement dated as of July 27, 2006 among Cendant, Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport (the "Separation and Distribution Agreement"), each of Realogy Group, Wyndham Worldwide and Travelport have assumed certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses), which are primarily related to each of their respective businesses. In addition, Realogy Group has assumed 62.5% and Wyndham Worldwide has assumed 37.5% of certain contingent and other corporate liabilities (and related costs and expenses) of Cendant.
The due to former parent balance was $21 million at both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. The due to former parent balance was comprised of the Company’s portion of the following: (i) Cendant’s remaining state and foreign contingent tax liabilities, (ii) accrued interest on contingent tax liabilities, (iii) potential liabilities related to Cendant’s terminated or divested businesses, and (iv) potential liabilities related to the residual portion of accruals for Cendant operations.
Tax Matters
The Company is subject to income taxes in the United States and several foreign jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining the worldwide provision for income taxes and recording related assets and liabilities. In the ordinary course of business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The Company is regularly under audit by tax authorities whereby the outcome of the audits is uncertain. The Company believes there is appropriate support for positions taken on its tax returns. The liabilities that have been recorded represent the best estimates of the probable loss on certain positions and are adequate for all open years based on an assessment of many factors including past experience and interpretations of tax law applied to the facts of each matter. However, the outcomes of tax audits are inherently uncertain.
Escrow and Trust Deposits
As a service to its customers, the Company administers escrow and trust deposits which represent undisbursed amounts received for the settlement of real estate transactions. Deposits at FDIC-insured institutions are insured up to $250 thousand. These escrow and trust deposits totaled $550 million at March 31, 2019 and $426 million at December 31, 2018. These escrow and trust deposits are not assets of the Company and, therefore, are excluded from the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, the Company remains contingently liable for the disposition of these deposits. 		   
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]      
Cendant Spin-off Number of New Independent Companies | Independent_Companies     4,000,000
Number of New Independent Companies per Cendant Business Unit | Independent_Companies     1,000,000
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Realogy 62.50%    
Guaranty Arrangement Percentage of Obligations Assumed by Wyndham 37.50%    
Due to former parent $ 21,000 $ 21,000  
Noninterest-bearing deposit liabilities 550,000 $ 426,000  
Maximum      
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]      
Cash, FDIC insured amount $ 250