Porsche Factory Tour Offers Lessons for an Effective Compliance Program
Last week, we made a trip to Zurich, Switzerland for client work and after finishing a day early made a side trip to Stuttgart, Germany to tour the Porsche factory. Our friends at Porsche North Houston suggested we make the trip and showed us how to set it up. The trip got us thinking about our work in compliance.
June 14, 2017 at 06:43 PM
5 minute read
Last week, we made a trip to Zurich, Switzerland for client work and after finishing a day early made a side trip to Stuttgart, Germany to tour the Porsche factory. Our friends at Porsche North Houston suggested we make the trip and showed us how to set it up. The trip got us thinking about our work in compliance.
Stuttgart is where Porsche builds its fabled 911 model car. There are 20 different versions of the car. The factory tour is a testament to Porsche's quality standards. We watched as 911 body shells painted in guards red, Miami blue, racing yellow, carrera white, jet black, and chalk danced along the assembly line while nimble Porsche technicians carefully attached parts to the cars. Because each 911 is different (potentially a different dashboard leather, instrument dials, interior options, engine and braking components), each part is barcoded to a particular car. Little robots move the parts to different stations where the technicians meticulously attach them to whichever car those parts belong to. Santa likely uses the Porsche factory as his benchmark. They also make the entry-level Boxter model on the same line, making the work even more complicated. At the end of the tour, a stack of merchandise at the gift shop reminds you that Porsche has won the world's greatest endurance race in Le Mans (set to begin later this month) 18 times. After the tour, the wins made perfect sense.
We were in Europe for compliance work. And as we drove back to Zurich on the Autobahn (as fast as our Fiat rental car would take us), we were reminded of the importance of defined processes and monitoring in effective compliance programs. We also learned that “ausfahrt” means exit, but that's a different column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells and the Stories That Shaped Africa This Year
- 2Borden Ladner Gervais Cyber Expert Warns of AI-Boosted Ransomware Attacks
- 3Phila. Judge Upholds $68.5M Verdict Over Construction Worker's Death
- 4Biden Vetoes Bill to Create More Federal Judgeships
- 5Memories of a Straight Shooter
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250