Vice President Brokerage Services

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Girard Sharp LLP, and The Hall Firm, Ltd. attorneys file Securities Class Action against Compass, Inc. (NYSE: COMP). SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 09, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Girard Sharp LLP, and The Hall Firm, Ltd., all national law firms specializing in complex class actions and shareholder rights, announce they have filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against Compass, Inc. ("Compass" or "Company") (NYSE: COMP) and certain officers and directors of Compass and Anywhere Real Estate Inc. ("Anywhere"). The class action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of former Anywhere shareholders who acquired newly issued Compass common stock in direct exchange for their Anywhere securities in the January 9, 2026 stock-for-stock transaction (the "Merger") by which Compass merged with and acquired Anywhere (the "Class"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned: Magloire v. Compass, Inc., et al., No. 1:26-cv-08885 (S.D.N.Y.). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Compass class action lawsuit, please provide your information by filling out our contact form. You can also contact attorney Adam Polk of Girard Sharp by calling (866) 981-4800 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Lead plaintiff motions for the Compass class action lawsuit must be filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than December 8, 2026. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that the offering materials for the Merger and related communications misrepresented and omitted material information concerning defendants' attestations to make reasonable best efforts to obtain authorizations and consents from regulatory authorities in connection with the Merger, as well as defendants' compliance with applicable laws, the absence of governmental investigations, and the possession of and compliance with licenses and permits necessary for the conduct of business. The complaint alleges that, in truth, at the time of the Merger, defendants surreptitiously hired a lobbyist, lawyer, and ally of President Donald Trump to obtain inside access to and backchannel high-level Department of Justice ("DOJ") officials to circumvent the standard merger review process and extinguish opposition to the Merger from certain individuals within the DOJ. As the complaint alleges, these undisclosed practices contradicted and undermined defendants' attestations of "reasonable best efforts" to obtain regulatory approval and purported "compliance with applicable laws," allowing the Merger to close despite the harm to industry competition as a result of the Merger's anticompetitive effect. Ultimately, members of Congress sought information regarding the DOJ's review of the Merger and criticized the "deeply disturbing" "fact pattern" preceding its approval, while the New York State Attorney General initiated an antitrust investigation regarding the Merger. The trading price of Compass common stock has suffered severe declines since the close of the Merger, and at the commencement of this action, Compass shares closed at $9.19 per share - a decline of over 28% from the approximately $12.84 share price on the exchange date for the Merger. Accordingly, the action seeks to recover damages for former Anywhere shareholders who acquired Compass stock in the Merger and sustained harm as a result. LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who acquired Compass common stock in exchange for their Anywhere securities pursuant to the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Compass class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Compass class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Compass class action lawsuit. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: If you wish to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than December 8, 2026. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the class action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder rights litigation. Our Firm ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report, recovering more than $916 million for investors in 2025. This marks our fourth #1 ranking in the past five years. And in those five years alone, Robbins Geller recovered $8.4 billion for investors - $3.4 billion more than any other law firm. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. More information on the Firm is available at the following page: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html. ABOUT GIRARD SHARP: Girard Sharp serves, and has served, as lead counsel in securities and other complex financial fraud cases throughout the country, and has successfully prosecuted numerous class actions on behalf of injured investors. We have secured hundreds of millions in recoveries on behalf of investor classes, including negotiating a $120 million settlement fund in In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation. More recent examples include: In re Maxar Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) ($36.5 million recovery); In re GWG Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (N.D. Tex.) ($50.95 million recovery); and In re HPE Enterprise Services-DXC Technology Co. Merger Litigation (Cal Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) ($47.5 million recovery). Girard Sharp has earned top-tier rankings from U.S. News and World Report for Securities and Class Action Litigation and has been repeatedly selected as an Elite Trial Lawyers finalist by the National Law Journal. ABOUT THE HALL FIRM: The Hall Firm, Ltd., represents shareholders in state and federal courts nationwide. Our shareholder rights practice runs the gamut, from historic securities fraud class actions to pioneering recoveries in the wake of botched IPOs and mergers. We stay ahead of the curve by eschewing the assembly line approach of other firms. Fresh eyes and an open mind give us an edge that pays off for the individual and institutional investors we represent. Over the past 5 years alone, the work of our attorneys has contributed to over $500 million in recoveries for aggrieved investors. Recent examples include: In re Maxar Technologies Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) ($36.5 million recovery); In re HPE Enterprise Services-DXC Technology Co. Merger Litigation (Cal Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cnty.) ($47.5 million recovery); and In re Newell Brands (N.J. Super. Ct., Hudson County) ($102.5 million recovery). Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts Adam E. Polk Girard Sharp LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (866) 981-4800 [email protected]

Albi Zhubi joins Compass bringing wellness real estate mastery. By E-A-A / October 7, 2026 Albi Zhubi has officially partnered with the Gambino Group at Compass, injecting a refreshing perspective into the competitive luxury property market. Her professional background seamlessly integrates foundational principles of health and wellness with traditional property sales and development. This innovative approach allows her to help discerning clients find homes that actively support both physical and mental well-being. For further context on industry shifts, exploring architecture articles can offer a broader understanding of modern design trends. Table of Contents The rise of wellness real estate. The integration of Zhubi into the agency aligns seamlessly with the rapidly growing consumer demand for holistic living spaces. Modern homebuyers increasingly prioritize vital elements like clean indoor air, abundant natural light, and dedicated fitness zones. Meeting modern buyer demands. By combining specialized wellness expertise with elite real estate acumen, Zhubi provides a distinct competitive advantage in the luxury sector. Industry insiders anticipate this unique focus will naturally attract health-conscious buyers and sellers alike. Ultimately, this transition positions the brokerage to capture an expanding niche market of wellness-driven consumers. Those interested in learning more about property evolution can review various informational guides for deeper insights. Transforming living environments. Zhubi ultimately aims to redefine how people perceive the deep connection between their daily living environments and personal health. Blending structural fluency with health-focused design principles changes the standard for high-end properties. Redefining luxury living. Property development trends continue to shift toward spaces that nurture the mind, body, and spirit equally. Evaluating different styles of home design helps prospective buyers visualize these transformative features clearly. As the market evolves, agents who understand the built environment's impact on human health will lead the way. Professionals often look toward regional architecture and historical architecture for inspiration on sustainable living. The future of advisory services. Advising clients from the earliest stages of floor planning ensures wellness features are baked into the foundation. Real estate marketing also benefits tremendously from organized architecture tours that showcase these cutting-edge properties. A new industry standard. Integrating health accreditation with multi-million-dollar sales records sets a brand new benchmark for advisory excellence. Top groups will undoubtedly follow this model to satisfy modern lifestyle demands. Expect to see more brokerages adopting wellness-centric approaches as health becomes the ultimate luxury commodity. Zhubi's impressive integration with Compass proves that the future of real estate is undeniably holistic. Additional Reading:

What CRMLS' lawsuit reveals about its escalating Compass fight. CRMLS says it sued Compass to preserve cooperation and equal listing access October 07, 2026 Quick read. * Compass' dispute with CRMLS moved into federal court after settlement talks broke down. * Rule 7.9 cases involving Compass listings surged in 2026, according to the filing. * An earlier compromise unraveled as CRMLS moved to build a broader legal defense fund. An AI tool created this summary, which was based on the text of the article and checked by an editor. California Regional Multiple Listing Service moved first this week in its legal fight with Compass, but the federal lawsuit also sheds new light on how the dispute escalated - and where there may once have been room for agreement. CRMLS CEO Art Carter said in an email to Inman that the MLS had hoped its detailed Sept. 30 response to Compass could lead to discussions over how to resolve the dispute. Instead, Carter said Compass "doubled down on its threats and became even more aggressive" over the weekend, prompting CRMLS to file suit Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. "CRMLS had no choice but to move forward with this filing to preserve the MLS cooperative and ensure that consumers and their agents continue to have equal access to property information," Carter wrote. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare CRMLS' cooperation rules lawful under federal and California antitrust law and permanently block Compass from pursuing threatened antitrust claims against the MLS. But the 37-page complaint and its exhibits also offer new details about the yearslong dispute between the organizations. CRMLS says enforcement cases involving Compass surged. In the filing, CRMLS said relatively few of the thousands of compliance reports it receives each year involved Rule 7.9, which requires certain listings to be submitted to the MLS within one business day of public marketing. In 2025, CRMLS said it issued 89 fines for Rule 7.9 violations, with just eight of them being made to Compass agents. More than 271,000 listings entered the system that year, the MLS said. So far in 2026, however, CRMLS said it had processed roughly 300 Rule 7.9 cases, about 75 involving Compass properties. The MLS said reports involving Compass had increased significantly since the spring. Ten Compass cases remained open when the complaint was filed, with eight under appeal. CRMLS also said it had declined to fine Compass in roughly 25 cases while implementing a new Coming Soon Limited Exposure process, which the MLS said was created in part at Compass' request. CRMLS says an earlier compromise fell apart. The filing also suggested that the current standoff between Compass and CRMLS was not inevitable. In a Sept. 30 letter included as an exhibit, CRMLS General Counsel Ed Zorn wrote that the MLS had previously proposed changes to its Coming Soon status that gave listing brokers greater control over distribution to third-party websites. According to Zorn, Reffkin and Compass General Counsel Ethan Glass initially praised that approach and said it resolved their objections to CRMLS' rules. CRMLS argued that Compass later reversed course when it issued its Sept. 8 demand. The complaint made a similar point, saying CRMLS' Coming Soon status allows public marketing while keeping the listing visible to MLS participants and gives sellers the option to limit distribution to portals including Zillow, Realtor.com, Homes.com and Redfin. Northwest MLS looms over the dispute. CRMLS is also putting a lot of weight on Compass' earlier settlement with Northwest Multiple Listing Service. Compass sued NWMLS over similar listing policies before the two sides settled this year. CRMLS argues that while the settlement changed some NWMLS distribution rules, it preserved the requirement that a listing be submitted for cooperation before it could be publicly marketed. In a Sept. 30 letter to Compass that CRMLS previously shared with trade media and later attached to the lawsuit as an exhibit, Zorn argued that the NWMLS rules Compass accepted were in some respects more restrictive than CRMLS Rule 7.9. He questioned how Compass could characterize CRMLS' rules as anticompetitive after agreeing to those terms in Washington. CRMLS held back some of its threatened claims. CRMLS' Sept. 30 letter threatened a much broader legal response if Compass sued. Zorn listed seven potential claims, including alleged Cartwright Act violations, unfair competition, interference with contractual and prospective business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. But none of those affirmative claims appear in the lawsuit CRMLS ultimately filed. Instead, the complaint contains two causes of action, both seeking declarations that CRMLS' cooperation rules comply with the Sherman Act and California's Cartwright Act. CRMLS is also seeking a permanent injunction barring Compass from pursuing antitrust claims over the rules, along with attorneys' fees and costs. The underlying disagreement remains the same. Compass argues homeowners should be able to publicly market office-exclusive listings without their agents facing MLS fines or other penalties. CRMLS says the issue is not public marketing itself, but whether a brokerage holding an exclusive listing agreement can market that property publicly while withholding it from the broader MLS cooperative. The MLS argues Rule 7.9 still gives sellers alternatives, including non-exclusive agreements and "No Cooperation Listings," while requiring cooperation once an exclusively listed property is marketed publicly. A Compass International Holdings spokesperson previously told Inman that MLSs supporting more than 350,000 agents across 12 states already allow the type of public marketing Compass favors and said other MLSs should follow their lead. CRMLS is building a broader legal defense fund. The lawsuit comes as CRMLS is also organizing a legal defense fund that it says could help other MLSs facing similar litigation threats. During a recent call with Inman, CRMLS General Counsel and VP Ed Zorn said other MLSs and brokers had already expressed interest in supporting the fund, which was still being formally organized. "The intent of the fund is not just for CRMLS," Zorn said. "It is to be available to those in the community of MLSs [that] find themselves being bullied with threats, and we don't want somebody to make bad decisions and walk away from defending cooperation simply because some bully with a lot of money is saying, 'I'm gonna bankrupt you with a lawsuit.'" Carter said this week that parties interested in participating in or learning more about the fund should contact CRMLS directly. A person familiar with Compass' plans told Inman the company still intends to move forward with its own lawsuit against CRMLS and will respond to the MLS' claims in that filing.