Douglas Elliman Inc

There are no material changes from the risk factors set forth in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, except as set forth below:

Industry structure changes that disrupt the functioning of the residential real estate market could materially adversely affect our operations and financial results.

Through our brokerages, we participate in MLS and are a member of the NAR and state real estate associations and, accordingly, are subject to each group’s rules, policies, data licenses, and terms of service. The rules of each MLS and real estate association to which we belong can vary widely and are complex.

From time to time, certain industry practices, including NAR and MLS rules, have come under regulatory scrutiny. There can be no assurances as to whether the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) or Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), their state counterparts, or other governmental body will determine that any industry practices or developments have an anti-competitive effect on the industry. Any such determination could result in industry investigations, legislative or regulatory action, private litigation or other actions, any of which could have the potential to disrupt our business.

On July 1, 2021, the DOJ announced its withdrawal from a settlement agreement reached during the prior administration with the NAR in relation to claims of anticompetitive behavior with respect to commissions received by buyers’ agents from sellers’ agents. The settlement previously required the NAR to adopt certain rule changes, such as increased disclosure of commission offers from sellers’ agents to buyers’ agents. In January 2023, a federal district court ruled that the DOJ must uphold the settlement agreement. The DOJ appealed the district court’s January 2023 ruling, which has been fully briefed and is scheduled for oral argument on December 1, 2023. The withdrawal of the DOJ from this settlement and the executive order signed by President Biden on July 9, 2021, which, among other things, directs the FTC to consider additional rule making pertaining to the real estate industry, indicates increased regulatory scrutiny of the real estate industry.

In addition, private litigants have filed several antitrust suits against the NAR and certain real estate brokerage firms, some of which the DOJ has intervened in, that allege certain NAR and MLS rules are anti-competitive under federal and state antitrust laws and result in increased costs to consumers. Certain of these antitrust suits have resulted in settlement agreements, pursuant to which the settling real estate brokerage companies have agreed to injunctive relief that requires those companies to implement practice changes in their brokerage operations. On October 31, 2023, a federal jury in the Western District of Missouri found in favor of a class of plaintiffs of home sellers from April 2015 to June 2022 in three states, and awarded damages of approximately $1.78 billion (which is subject to statutory treble damages) for anticompetitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws arising from the NAR’s requirement that sellers’ agents for MLS-listed properties offer to pay a portion of commissions received on the sale of such properties to buyers’ agents (the Sitzer/Burnett case). NAR and certain brokerage defendants have settled the Sitzer/Burnett case. These settlements, which remain subject to final court approval, include both monetary and non-monetary settlement terms, which may impact business practices within the industry. Douglas Elliman is not a defendant in the Sitzer/Burnett case.

Following the federal jury decision in the Sitzer/Burnett case on October 31, 2023, several additional putative class action lawsuits were filed against the NAR and additional real estate brokerage firms, including Douglas Elliman, alleging anticompetitive conduct similar to that in the Sitzer/Burnett case in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, consumer protection claims and allegations of unjust enrichment. Douglas Elliman is presently aware that it is a named defendant in eight such matters in Missouri, Illinois and New York. Douglas Elliman may become involved in additional legal proceedings concerning the same or similar claims. On April 26, 2024, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to resolve, on a nationwide basis, the Gibson and Umpa cases (the “Lawsuits”). The settlement resolves all claims on a nationwide basis by the plaintiffs and proposed settlement class members in the Lawsuits, which includes, but is not limited to, all claims concerning brokerage commissions by the proposed settlement class members that were asserted in other lawsuits against us and our subsidiaries (collectively, the “Claims”), and releases us, our subsidiaries, and affiliated agents from all Claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay, into an escrow fund, $7,750 within 30 business days of preliminary approval of the settlement by the court, as well as two $5,000 contingent payments subject to certain financial contingencies through December 31, 2027. We are unable to reasonably estimate the financial impact of any remaining matters.

Any of the foregoing litigation (including any related settlement agreement) or subsequent regulatory action, if successful, could result in significant changes or disruptions to industry practices of the residential real estate market, including changes or disruptions to buyers’ agent’s commissions, and could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. Such consequences may reduce our revenues, require additional expenditure, or distract our management’s attention from pursuing our growth strategy.

We could experience meaningful changes in industry operations or structure, as a result of governmental pressures, the result of litigation, changes to NAR or MLS rules, the actions of certain competitors or the introduction or growth of certain competitive models.

Contractual obligations related to confidentiality and noncompetition may be ineffective or unenforceable against departing employees.

Our operations are dependent on the efforts, abilities and experience of our employees, and we compete for their services. We have contracts with certain employees that include provisions preventing them from competing with us both during and after the term of our employment contracts with them. Enforceability of the non-compete agreements that we have in place is not guaranteed, and contractual restrictions could be breached without discovery or adequate remedies. On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order encouraging the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to curtail unfair use of non-compete agreements and other agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility. While we cannot predict how the initiatives set forth in the executive order will be implemented or, as a result, the impact that the executive order will have on our operations, there is now increased uncertainty regarding the long-term enforceability of our non-compete agreements. In April 2024, the FTC issued a final rule that prohibits employers from entering into non-compete agreements with workers and requires employers to rescind existing non-compete agreements (other than with respect to senior executives). If the final rule becomes effective, our business may be negatively affected. In addition, the New York state legislature passed legislation in 2023 that would have prohibited most non-compete agreements between employers and workers in New York State, although it was not ultimately enacted. It is possible that additional similar legislation may be introduced in the future. We are monitoring developments related to these proposed laws for any potential impact on the arrangements we enter into with third parties, including our real estate agents.

No equity securities of ours which were not registered under the Securities Act have been issued or sold by us during the three months ended March 31, 2024. In addition, we did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the three months ended March 31, 2024.

In the quarter ended March 31, 2024, none of our directors or officers (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) of the Exchange Act)adopted orterminated a plan for the purchase or sale of our securities intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c) or a non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement for the purchase or sale of our securities, within the meaning of Item 408 of Regulation S-K. However, certain of our officers or directors have made, and may from time to time make elections to have shares withheld to cover withholding taxes or pay the exercise price of options, which may be designed to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c) under the Exchange Act or may constitute non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangements.