Attorneys representing the Tuccori case have rejected a request from Batton counsel for nearly $40 million in fees from the Tuccori settlement fund. The Batton counsel argued that they are entitled to a share of the fund because most of the money came from opt-in defendants litigated in Batton.
The Tuccori settlement pool exceeds $120 million, with about $106 million of that amount receiving initial approval in May. Most of the fund derives from settlements involving the National Association of Realtors and various broker defendants who were named in Batton but became part of the Tuccori agreement via an opt-in provision.
Tuccori Counsel Opposition
Class counsel for Tuccori argued that the Batton attorneys are not entitled to a share of a fund it did not help build. They asserted that certain work supporting the request was already compensated in a different case, and that the billing data is too fragmented to justify the requested amount.
Read Also: Solo Agents Lose Clients to Quick Responders
The Tuccori attorneys themselves have requested $37.9 million in fees. Tuccori class counsel is asking the court to deny the request as premature or reject it outright on the merits.
Furthermore, the Batton attorneys’ argument is based on the fact that 95% of the settlement money paid into the global fund came from defendants litigated by the Batton counsel. However, Tuccori’s class counsel countered that the Batton attorneys did not contribute to the building of the Tuccori settlement fund, and therefore, should not be entitled to a share of it.
Sitzer/Burnett Rehearing Bids Denied
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected attempts by two Sitzer/Burnett settlement objectors to have their cases reheard. Monty March and Robert Friedman had asked for the rehearing after the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision.
The denial follows a string of related setbacks for objectors this year. The Sitzer/Burnett settlements were upheld in rulings on August 19 and September 15, and the Gibson settlements were separately upheld on September 1.
Read Also: HouseCanary files for bankruptcy amid creditor disputes
Zillow Shareholder Suits Consolidated
Two shareholder derivative suits filed against Zillow executives have been consolidated into a single case. The suits accuse current and former executives and directors of breaching their fiduciary duties to the company in connection with a 2025 rentals partnership between Zillow and Redfin.
The complaints allege that Zillow’s stock price and market value fell sharply after the company disclosed the scale of its regulatory exposure, and that several named executives sold company stock while those disclosures remained incomplete – though the two complaints differ on the specific dollar figures involved. Zillow has not yet responded to the allegations.
Two shareholder suits against Zillow executives, Fogel v. Frink, et al and Ross v. Wacksman, et al, were consolidated into a single case on September 22 by a federal judge in Seattle.
