{"id":1743,"date":"2025-08-31T06:19:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-31T06:19:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tcap.blog\/?p=1743"},"modified":"2025-08-31T06:28:57","modified_gmt":"2025-08-31T06:28:57","slug":"supplier-series-optimas-prime-canditiates-for-a-supplier-series-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tcap.blog\/2025\/08\/31\/supplier-series-optimas-prime-canditiates-for-a-supplier-series-edition\/","title":{"rendered":"Supplier Series : Optimas – Prime Candidates for a Supplier Series Edition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s always a corporate brochure that smells faintly of lacquer and breath mints. Optimas\u2019 is tasteful, full of smiling factory shots and neat bullet points about quality and on-time deliveries. Stick a Cummins Quality Award on the mantelpiece and you\u2019re basically anointed. But take a close peak behind the curtain and you\u2019ll find court files that read like a different company \u2013 one that prefers subpoenas to conversation and litigation to good governance. That\u2019s the story here: a supplier who can win awards by day and drag customers into the high court by night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This isn\u2019t a hit piece for clicks. It\u2019s a vendor risk dossier through our eyes. If you care about factory floors, production lines or the reputations of buyers who name-drop you in press releases – read on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

When supply lines aren\u2019t life support – they\u2019re hostage situations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Picture this. A carmaker needs parts to keep a production line moving. The clock is a guillotine. LEVC pleaded with Optimas to keep supplying a mountain of bespoke parts and came to court asking a judge to force the supplier to keep the line alive. Sounds reasonable, right? The court refused the emergency injunction. Not because LEVC lied, but because the contract and the evidence weren\u2019t clear-cut – and because the judge thought damages might do. Translation – Optimas had the leverage and the court said it wasn\u2019t going to play scaffolding for a production rescue without clearer proof. That\u2019s uncomfortable for any OEM. It reveals a supplier willing to run hard-nosed commercial plays at the risk of stopping other people\u2019s businesses dead. This isn\u2019t procurement drama. It\u2019s operational blackmail in a three-piece suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Trade-secret wars – litigation as strategy<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If you think suppliers just quietly move bolts and parts, think again. Optimas sued ex-employees and competitors in the US in a trade-secret battle that didn\u2019t whisper – it blared. Claims of stolen customers, trafficking in confidential lists and alleged IP theft landed in federal court under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. These are not accidental disputes. They\u2019re scorched-earth tactics meant to deter talent mobility and to send a message: if you leave, expect subpoenas. For buyers and partners, that\u2019s a red flag – a supplier that treats human capital and customer relationships like hostage objects is a brittle counterparty when supply chains stress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Fingerprints, privacy and a six-figure stain<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Modern factories use biometrics for timekeeping. Modern law in Illinois bites hard when companies mishandle that data. Optimas found itself named in a biometric privacy class action under BIPA. The case headed toward a settlement figure in the six-figure range. Not gargantuan, but not trivial either. This isn\u2019t a freak accident. It points to sloppy data practices where peoples\u2019 fingerprints become legal landmines. In an era when compliance is a checkbox buyers need to tick, this matters. Biometric privacy isn\u2019t a niche tech issue – it\u2019s employee safety and consent. A supplier that doesn\u2019t get that deserves a place on a vendor watchlist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Awards, PR and the great double-take<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Now for the fun part. Optimas proudly lists certifications, supplier awards and a modern-slavery statement that looks good in a pitch deck. They shout about long-term agreements and case studies – and yes, they have a Cummins Quality Award on their site. Problem is, awards do not replace behaviour. You can pin a ribbon to a factory wall and still mismanage biometric data, litigate aggressively and leave OEMs scrambling in court. The juxtaposition is ugly and instructive. It\u2019s the corporate equivalent of a well-lit portrait hanging over a basement full of unpaid invoices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why this matters to Cummins and its partners<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Cummins is not guilty by association. But it is sensible to ask why engine-makers and OEMs award suppliers without sufficient operational transparency. If your supplier can hold a production line to ransom, or be dragged into privacy suits, who takes the hit? Not the supplier\u2019s PR team. Not the awards committee. It\u2019s the factory worker who misses a shift and the OEM facing millions in downtime. When you run campaigns calling out corporate hypocrisy, details like these are the nails you hammer home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The throughline – compliance as a paper umbrella<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Optimas\u2019 case files suggest a pattern many big suppliers share – excellent marketing, functional compliance statements, and the ability to fracture when pressure hits. Contracts don\u2019t stop stress. Threats and injunction fights do not inspire confidence. Biometric settlements do not scream world-class data governance. Together, those things point to a supplier that behaves like a corporate defensive machine rather than a secure, resilient partner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Final cut<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If you work in procurement, compliance or investor relations – file this under actionable intelligence. Ask for the supply-chain continuity plans. Demand contractual penalties tied to downtime. Check the privacy logs and audit trails for biometric systems. And for Cummins or any OEM still handing out awards like participation trophies – ask whether those shiny plaques come with audited behaviour checks beyond the press release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optimas sells bolts and logistics. That\u2019s their business. But a supplier that litigates first and asks questions later is a risk. Awards and PR aren\u2019t a guarantee. They are a front. And under pressure, the real product is revealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Sources<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n