Edge Logistics takes rival Freight Tec to court over alleged customer diversion
Chicago-based freight brokerage Edge Logistics has filed a federal lawsuit against competitor Freight Tec Management Group and four former employees, accusing them of orchestrating a plan to redirect customers using confidential commercial information and alleged kickbacks financed through inflated transportation charges.
Filed on September 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the 51-page complaint alleges that the former employees established competing businesses while still working for Edge and arranged to move customer accounts to Utah-based Freight Tec before leaving the company.
Edge claims the departures had a significant impact on its expedited-freight operation. According to the complaint, the division contracted by 66.4% within weeks of the employees’ departures in May 2026, while the company’s remaining business expanded by 8.5%. The filing does not clarify whether these figures refer to revenue, shipment volumes or another performance measure, and it does not specify the exact comparison period.
The defendants include Freight Tec Management Group Inc.; former Edge employees Nicholas Daglas, John Harlan, Andre Apiquian and Alexis Hersh; and three limited liability companies allegedly created to operate as Freight Tec brokerage agents: Parlay Expedited LLC, Thorndale Logistics LLC and Freight Redefined LLC.
Todd Rowden, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP representing the four former employees and the three related LLCs, rejected the allegations.
“My clients dispute plaintiff’s allegations, and the legal sufficiency of its claims, and have no further comment regarding the complaint,” Rowden told FreightWaves in an emailed statement.
Freight Tec did not provide a substantive response to FreightWaves’ requests for comment before publication.
Alleged business preparations began before employees resigned
The four former employees worked in Edge’s expedited-freight division, arranging urgent and time-sensitive shipments using straight trucks, box trucks, cargo vans and other equipment, according to the complaint.
Founded in 2014, Edge Logistics is headquartered in Chicago and employs approximately 120 people, according to Built In Chicago. Freight Tec Management Group, founded in 1997, is a privately held freight brokerage based in Bountiful, Utah. It offers truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL) and expedited-freight services through a network of independent freight agents. LinkedIn lists the company’s workforce at between 51 and 200 employees.
Edge alleges that the four employees had access to sensitive customer information, including freight rates, pricing strategies, transportation lanes, customer preferences and commercial relationships.
Rather than leaving the brokerage before establishing independent competing operations, they allegedly worked with Freight Tec to develop a plan to transfer existing Edge accounts to the rival company.
The complaint further claims that Freight Tec’s leadership knew the employees were bound by restrictive employment agreements and reviewed those contracts before engaging them.
According to Edge’s court filing, Freight Tec’s chief executive met with Daglas approximately three to five times before the employees departed. The discussions allegedly covered their employment agreements, documentation and the legality of the proposed business arrangements.
Under the alleged plan, the former employees would operate independent agency businesses under Freight Tec’s brokerage authority, receiving a share of the gross profits generated by customers they brought to the company.
Three of the defendants registered their own LLCs in April 2026:
-
April 20: Andre Apiquian registered Freight Redefined LLC in Florida.
-
April 22: John Harlan registered Thorndale Logistics LLC in Illinois.
-
April 23: Nicholas Daglas registered Parlay Expedited LLC in Illinois.
Edge maintains that all three companies were established while their owners were still employed by the brokerage.
The lawsuit also alleges that the employees staggered their resignations to make their departures appear unrelated.
Daglas submitted his resignation on May 8, telling Edge he intended to leave the freight industry to focus on his family, according to the complaint. Harlan allegedly told colleagues he was leaving to work for a friend in Las Vegas, while Apiquian said he wanted a local, office-based position.
Edge argues that these explanations concealed their alleged plans to continue working in freight brokerage through Freight Tec.
Customer-specific email accounts allegedly appeared before departures
A central element of Edge’s complaint concerns customer-specific Freight Tec email accounts that allegedly appeared in shipment-related communications before the employees left the company.
On May 9, while Daglas and Hersh were still employed by Edge, an email account associated with Freight Tec and dedicated to an Edge customer identified in the filing as Customer A reportedly appeared in an email thread concerning a shipment.
Five days later, on May 14, another Freight Tec email account, dedicated to Customer B, appeared in a rate-request exchange involving Daglas and Harlan’s Edge email addresses.
Edge contends that these communications indicate the defendants were preparing to handle its existing customers through Freight Tec before their employment ended.
The complaint also identifies subsequent transactions allegedly involving both customers.
On June 28 and 29, Apiquian allegedly arranged an expedited shipment for Customer B through Freight Tec and Freight Redefined LLC, identifying himself as Freight Tec’s key accounts manager.
Hersh, described in the complaint as a strategic account manager at Freight Tec, allegedly coordinated the delivery and confirmed the shipment’s final rate.
Another exchange occurred on August 18, when a representative of Customer A requested a transportation quote from Apiquian using his Freight Tec email address. An Edge email address was also included in the correspondence, according to the lawsuit. Apiquian allegedly responded with a freight rate.
Edge further claims that freight postings appeared on a load board for transportation lanes previously handled by its brokerage. The postings allegedly used Freight Tec email addresses associated with Daglas and Harlan.
Lawsuit alleges kickbacks were financed through higher freight charges
Beyond the alleged transfer of customer accounts, Edge accuses the former employees of arranging kickback payments to a decision-maker at a shipping customer in exchange for directing freight to Freight Tec.
According to the complaint, the alleged arrangement took shape around April 2026, when representatives associated with a customer identified only as Customer C visited Chicago.
Edge claims the former employees informed an East Coast contact at Customer C that they intended to establish a competing operation through Freight Tec.
The customer contact allegedly agreed to direct shipments to the new operation but demanded kickbacks funded by adding amounts to freight charges.
The defendants subsequently handled Customer C’s freight under the alleged arrangement, according to the complaint.
Edge argues that the payments gave Freight Tec an unfair competitive advantage by influencing the customer’s transportation-routing decisions instead of securing business through competitive pricing or service quality.
However, the lawsuit does not identify Customer C, disclose the amounts of the alleged payments or provide underlying invoices or payment records establishing that the kickbacks occurred.
The allegations remain unproven, and no court has determined whether the alleged arrangement took place.
Edge seeks restrictions on competition and financial compensation
Edge’s complaint sets out 11 counts, including breach of contract, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contractual and prospective business relationships, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy and unfair competition.
The company alleges that the former employees violated employment agreements containing confidentiality, noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions.
Edge is asking the court to prevent the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential business information. It also seeks restrictions on certain competitive activities and the solicitation of its customers.
The requested relief extends beyond those restrictions. Edge wants the return of confidential documents and electronic information, the preservation of relevant electronic devices and accounts, and forensic imaging of those materials.
The company is also seeking monetary damages, the disgorgement of allegedly improper profits and attorneys’ fees. The complaint does not specify a dollar amount for the damages claimed.
Court records indicate that attorneys for Daglas and Harlan had previously challenged the enforceability of certain employment agreements, arguing that the contracts lacked sufficient consideration.
Daglas’ agreement also contains an arbitration provision, as acknowledged in the complaint. Edge says it is seeking injunctive relief against him in federal court at this stage and intends to pursue monetary claims through arbitration, subject to the circumstances described in the filing.
No court has ruled on the merits of Edge’s allegations or determined whether the disputed employment restrictions are enforceable.
Defendants face a December deadline to respond
Court records filed on October 6 show that the four former employees and the three related LLCs waived formal service of the complaint.
Their responses are due December 1, with an initial status hearing scheduled for December 2 in Chicago.
According to the latest docket reviewed by FreightWaves, none of the defendants had filed a substantive response to the complaint, and the court had not issued a ruling on Edge’s allegations.
The case, Edge Logistics LLC v. Freight Tec Management Group Inc., highlights the legal and financial exposure freight brokers may face when employees leave with valuable customer relationships and establish competing operations. It also raises questions about the protection of confidential commercial information, the enforcement of employment restrictions and the boundaries of competition in the freight brokerage market.
