An antitrust lawsuit filed against Illinois real estate companies, Realtor associations and individuals has been revamped in an effort to meet new standards that relate to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

The lawsuit, originally filed by Illinois broker Gregory Hackman in November 2006 and amended in October 2007, charges that other industry participants retaliated against Hackman when he offered a reduced commission rate for real estate services.

The amended complaint alleges that the parties named in the lawsuit “entered into an agreement where they would … retaliate against Hackman in every facet of his business,” specifically refusing to show Hackman’s listings to their own clients and refusing to present offers on their listings from potential buyers represented by Hackman.

The complaint alleges occurrences in which parties named in the lawsuit “stole” a client from Hackman by convincing a client to break a contract, and in another instance made “derogatory” statements to a home seller about Hackman, among other incidents.

U.S. District Court Judge Elaine E. Bucklo dismissed portions of the original lawsuit last year but allowed Hackman’s legal team to amend the original complaint and to provide more detailed evidence supporting allegations that an agreement was made among competitors. The judge cited Bell Atlantic Corp. vs. Twombly, a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in May 2007, in requesting more detailed evidence.

Hackman’s amended complaint names Dickerson-Nieman Realtors, Whitehead Realtors, Coldwell Banker Premier, Prudential Crosby Realtors, Tom McKiski realtors, 10 individuals, the Rockford Area Association of Realtors and Illinois Association of Realtors.

Also, the motion states that the complaint does not show that the Rockford association and its CEO Terrie Hall “engaged in any anticompetitive conduct violative of the Sherman Act,” and states that “Hackman improperly seeks to have this court intervene in an ethics complaint” hearing that has not been held.

Hackman’s amended complaint charges that he lost real estate commissions and other income as a result of “intentional interference” with his client and agent relationships, and claims damages over $500,000.

Show Comments Hide Comments
Sign up for Inman’s Morning Headlines
What you need to know to start your day with all the latest industry developments
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive marketing emails from Inman.
Success!
Thank you for subscribing to Morning Headlines.
Back to top
Only 3 days left to register for Inman Connect Las Vegas before prices go up! Don't miss the premier event for real estate pros.Register Now ×
Limited Time Offer: Get 1 year of Inman Select for $199SUBSCRIBE×
Log in
If you created your account with Google or Facebook
Don't have an account?
Forgot your password?
No Problem

Simply enter the email address you used to create your account and click "Reset Password". You will receive additional instructions via email.

Forgot your username? If so please contact customer support at (510) 658-9252

Password Reset Confirmation

Password Reset Instructions have been sent to

Subscribe to The Weekender
Get the week's leading headlines delivered straight to your inbox.
Top headlines from around the real estate industry. Breaking news as it happens.
15 stories covering tech, special reports, video and opinion.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
Unique features from hacker profiles to portal watch and video interviews.
It looks like you’re already a Select Member!
To subscribe to exclusive newsletters, visit your email preferences in the account settings.
Up-to-the-minute news and interviews in your inbox, ticket discounts for Inman events and more
1-Step CheckoutPay with a credit card
By continuing, you agree to Inman’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

You will be charged . Your subscription will automatically renew for on . For more details on our payment terms and how to cancel, click here.

Interested in a group subscription?
Finish setting up your subscription
×