Predict your next investment

Corporation
INDUSTRIAL | Manufacturing / Metal Fabrication
constellium.com

See what CB Insights has to offer

Stage

IPO | IPO

Date of IPO

5/23/2013

Market Cap

2.50B

Stock Price

17.53

About Constellium

Constellium is a global provider in the design and manufacture of a broad range of specialty rolled and extruded aluminum products, serving primarily the aerospace, packaging and automotive end-markets. We have a strategic footprint of manufacturing facilities located in the United States, Europe and China. The company's business model is to add value by converting aluminum into semi-fabricated products. Constellium's product portfolio commands higher margins as compared to less differentiated, more commoditized fabricated aluminum products, such as common alloy coils, paintstock, foilstock and soft alloys for construction and distribution.

Constellium Headquarter Location

Tupolevlaan 41-61

1119 NW,

Netherlands

+31 20 654 9780

Latest Constellium News

Fourth Circuit Refuses to Create a Less Deferential Standard of Review for Arbitral Decisions That Implicate Res Judicata or Col...

Jan 14, 2022

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=a5b73ab3-5b6e-49f6-bf38-5fad1d5ed823" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> In a dispute between Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood LLC and a labor union, Constellium argued that an arbitrator’s award against Constellium was contrary to a prior court decision involving the same parties and therefore violated the doctrine of res judicata. Despite the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, Constellium sued in district court seeking a declaratory judgment that it should prevail in the dispute. The district court denied Constellium’s petition and the parties proceeded to arbitration, which resulted in an award in favor of the union. Constellium appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court should have determined the preclusive effect of the prior decision in the first instance or, in the alternative, that the appellate court should apply a less deferential standard for reviewing res judicata and collateral estoppel errors than applies to other alleged legal errors in an arbitration. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, noting that the Supreme Court has identified two categories of threshold questions — procedural questions for the arbitrator, and questions of arbitrability for the court. Questions of arbitrability are “quite limited” and include disputes about the existence and scope of a valid and binding arbitration agreement. “Procedural questions,” on the other hand, grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition, and include issues such as the application of statutes of limitations, notice requirements, laches, and estoppel. Such procedural questions do not present any legal challenge to the arbitrator’s underlying power and are the types of questions that the parties would likely expect the arbitrator to determine. The court found that the preclusive effect of a prior judgment is a “procedural question” for the arbitrator. Similar to laches and estoppel, preclusion is an affirmative defense to the underlying dispute and does not implicate the arbitrator’s power, unlike questions related to the existence or scope of an arbitration agreement. Constellium “highlight[ed] older decisions” holding that courts “have the power to defend their judgments as res judicata, including the power to enjoin or stay subsequent arbitrations,” and argued that the court should exercise “plenary review” of an arbitrator’s preclusion decision rather than applying the typical highly deferential standards for review of an arbitration decision. But the Fourth Circuit found no legal basis for such a distinction in the Federal Arbitration Act or case law. Lacking any legal basis for treating such issues differently, the court declined Constellium’s invitation to expand its review of legal errors in arbitration awards beyond that authorized by the FAA, and affirmed the award against Constellium.

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Constellium Patents

Constellium has filed 136 patents.

The 3 most popular patent topics include:

  • Metallurgy
  • Named alloys
  • Steels
patents chart

Application Date

Grant Date

Title

Related Topics

Status

9/2/2015

11/30/2021

Metallurgy, Steels, Deformation (mechanics), Solid mechanics, Metalworking

Grant

Application Date

9/2/2015

Grant Date

11/30/2021

Title

Related Topics

Metallurgy, Steels, Deformation (mechanics), Solid mechanics, Metalworking

Status

Grant

Constellium Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Constellium Rank

CB Insights uses Cookies

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.