Former ERA Real Estate president Alex Vidal is pushing back against Compass’ attempt to prevent him from leading rival franchise brand REMAX, citing forfeited stock awards and the company’s own history of opposing noncompete agreements.
In an Oct. 30 filing in Delaware Chancery Court, Vidal’s attorneys argued that Compass is seeking to enforce overly broad restrictions without providing concrete evidence that he misused confidential information.
The filing also cites a 2015 op-ed by Compass founder and CEO Robert Reffkin announcing the company’s decision to eliminate noncompetes, arguing that his earlier stance undermines Compass’ position in the current dispute.
Compass and ERA filed suit against Vidal on Oct. 19, seeking to prevent him from serving as REMAX president until at least August 2027. The companies contend that Vidal violated restrictions tied to long-term incentive awards granted before Compass acquired ERA’s former parent, Anywhere Real Estate, in January.
Court documents reviewed by Inman show that Vidal was granted awards with a combined target value of $310,000 in 2024 and 2025. Neither the requested status quo order nor the preliminary injunction had been granted as of the docket reviewed by Inman.
Vidal challenges Compass’ noncompete claims
In his opposition to Compass’ request for an immediate status quo order, Vidal argues that the company is effectively seeking to obtain its ultimate relief before discovery or a hearing on the merits. His attorneys say that removing him from a position he has held since September would change, rather than preserve, the status quo, requiring a higher legal standard for such relief.
They also argue that the restrictions Compass is seeking to enforce are excessively broad, extending across the United States and potentially into international markets. They contend that certain provisions could extend the noncompete beyond its original one-year term, depending on how long litigation takes.
In his opposition filing, Vidal maintains that he returned his company-issued laptop, retained no confidential information and is prohibited under his REMAX employment agreement from using proprietary information belonging to a former employer. His attorneys also note that Compass waited seven weeks to seek relief in Delaware, first pursuing the dispute in Texas, where the case was dismissed because the agreements required litigation in Delaware.
Another central issue in the dispute is the incentive compensation Vidal was granted while at ERA. His attorneys say, citing his sworn declaration, that Vidal forfeited his unvested awards when he resigned.
His attorneys argue that Compass is attempting to enforce restrictions even after Vidal lost the unvested compensation associated with them, citing a recent Delaware Chancery Court decision criticizing a “double-downside situation” in which an employee can lose equity while remaining bound by restrictive covenants.
Vidal’s attorneys also highlighted a December 2015 op-ed written by Reffkin titled “The Right Side of History,” in which the Compass CEO announced that the company was eliminating noncompetes because “open and free competition keeps us all accountable.”
The commentary, which was originally published in Commercial Observer and then later republished on blogging platform Medium, criticized restrictions that limit employees’ professional mobility, although Reffkin acknowledged that “narrow” agreements could legitimately protect trade secrets.
“Compass recognizes the important difference between protecting a company’s proprietary information and inhibiting the growth and economic stability of employees and their families,” Reffkin wrote at the time. “While non-compete clauses are not always enforced, requiring someone to sign away their professional rights for a lengthy period or requiring them to move in order to make a living, is unnecessarily harmful and disruptive on many levels.”
Vidal’s attorneys argue that Compass’ historical position undercuts its claim that enforcing his noncompete is necessary. According to Vidal’s filing, Compass has responded that the agreements originated with Anywhere, not Compass.
Vidal asks the court to deny the status quo order or, alternatively, limit any interim restrictions to confidentiality and preservation obligations without preventing him from working at REMAX.
Compass declined to comment further when contacted by Inman on Monday. Vidal and REMAX did not respond to Inman‘s requests for comment.
Incentive awards at center of dispute
According to Compass’ verified complaint, Vidal accepted restrictive covenant agreements in 2022, 2024 and 2025 as conditions of receiving long-term incentive compensation from Anywhere.
In February 2024, Anywhere granted Vidal awards with an aggregate target value of $110,000, including 12,101 cash-settled restricted stock units and a performance award with a $36,300 target. Then in February 2025, he received additional awards with a combined target value of $200,000, including 38,616 cash-settled restricted stock units and a performance award with a $66,000 target. He also received an earlier award of 1,833 restricted stock units in 2022.
The $310,000 represents the combined target grant value of the 2024 and 2025 awards, not necessarily the amount Vidal ultimately received. The compensation arrangements took on additional significance when Compass completed its $1.6 billion acquisition of Anywhere in January.
In a December 2025 merger proxy, Compass and Anywhere disclosed that outstanding equity awards would generally be converted into Compass restricted stock units while retaining substantially the same terms and conditions, including vesting requirements. Certain outstanding cash-based incentive awards would also be assumed by Compass under their existing terms. Compass subsequently confirmed in a Jan. 9 SEC filing that it had assumed certain outstanding Anywhere awards and converted them into awards tied to Compass shares.
According to the complaint, Vidal’s outstanding cash-settled restricted stock units and long-term performance awards were converted into share-settled Compass restricted stock units. The conversion agreement also required him to continue complying with the original restrictive covenants.
The agreements contain forfeiture and clawback provisions, including potential repayment obligations if a court ultimately finds certain restrictions unenforceable and incapable of being modified. Those provisions could reach compensation already earned, while the forfeiture Vidal describes concerns his unvested awards.
Compass has not expressly asked the court to order Vidal to return compensation. Instead, it seeks to enforce the restrictions, arguing that his appointment as REMAX president threatens sensitive information about ERA franchise relationships, recruiting strategies and Compass’ proprietary HOME technology platform.
Its proposed preliminary injunction would bar Vidal from serving as REMAX president until at least Aug. 21, 2027, with possible extensions, and restrict certain solicitation activities through August 2028.
