800+ Truckers Sue Super Ego Holding for Fraud and Breach of Contract

Super Ego Holding Facing Massive Class Action Lawsuit Over Wage Theft and Fraud

More than 800 truckers have launched a legal battle against Super Ego Holding LLC and its network of affiliated carriers, alleging a systemic pattern of wage theft, fraud, and illegal labor practices. The lawsuit, currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, paints a picture of a sprawling enterprise that allegedly cheated drivers out of their earnings even as evading federal safety regulations.

Founded by Serbian entrepreneur Aleksandar Mimic, Super Ego Holding operates a vast network of commercial trucking and leasing companies with primary hubs in Jacksonville, Florida, and Elmhurst, Illinois. The company serves some of the world’s largest retailers, including Walmart, Amazon, Costco, and the United States Postal Service.

The Core Allegations: Rate Manipulation and Wage Theft

At the heart of the litigation is a claim that Super Ego Holding engaged in a companywide practice of “skimming” from the top of load prices. According to the official case website, the company allegedly lied to truckers about the actual price of loads by secretly altering brokers’ rate confirmation sheets.

By making the load price appear lower than it actually was, Super Ego Holding could pay drivers a percentage of a falsified, lower amount while pocketing the difference. This alleged fraud is central to the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and fraud.

Labor Violations and Driver Misclassification

Beyond the manipulation of load rates, the lawsuit alleges several severe violations of federal and state labor laws:

• Employee Misclassification: The company is accused of misclassifying truckers as independent contractors to avoid providing benefits and adhering to employment laws.
• Illegal Deductions: Plaintiffs claim the company made unauthorized and illegal deductions from their paychecks.
• Minimum Wage Violations: The lawsuit alleges that in some pay periods, drivers were paid less than the federal minimum wage.
• Withheld Wages: Drivers claim the company simply withheld wages they were owed.

the plaintiffs are seeking damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal Truth in Leasing Act, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The “Chameleon Carrier” Controversy

The legal troubles for Super Ego Holding extend beyond wage disputes. A CBS News investigation has linked the company to “chameleon carrier” schemes. These are trucking operations that frequently change their company names and identities to escape terrible safety records and evade federal enforcement.

Safety consultants describe these schemes as a way for revenue-focused companies to run a carrier into the ground, ignore safety regulations, and then “reincarnate” under a new name to abandon their history of violations. This practice is described by regulators and former employees as a significant risk to public road safety.

Current Legal Status and Timeline

The litigation is currently in the active phase. While Super Ego Holding denies any wrongdoing, the case has progressed through several key milestones:

• Initial Filing: The complaint was first filed on August 5, 2022.
• Fact Discovery: This phase closed on April 4, 2025.
• Amended Complaint: On August 6, 2025, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint, which expanded the list of named defendants and the scope of the allegations.
• Current Status: Expert reports are due through mid-2025, moving the case closer to trial readiness. No settlement has been reached as of April 13, 2026.

Who Qualifies for the Lawsuit?

The class action is a nationwide collective action. According to the case details, those who may qualify include:

• Truckers who contracted with Super Ego Holding or its affiliated carriers (such as Kordun Express Inc., Floyd Inc., and Rocket Expediting LLC).
• Drivers who were paid based on a percentage of the load.
• Drivers who worked with these entities from August 5, 2012, to the present.

As the case moves toward trial, the outcome will likely provide significant clarity on the legality of rate-sharing practices and the classification of drivers within large-scale trucking networks.