Thyssenkrupp Materials LLC v. Triumph Group Inc.; Triumph Aerostructures LLC

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 22a0449n.06
Case No. 22-1146
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS LLC,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TRIUMPH GROUP INC.; TRIUMPH
AEROSTRUCTURES LLC,
Defendants - Appellants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from the district court’s order confirming an
arbitration award in favor of thyssenkrupp Materials LLC (“thyssenkrupp”) against Triumph
Group Inc. (“Triumph Group”) and Triumph Aerostructures LLC (“Triumph Aerostructures,”
together the “Triumph Entities”).
Thyssenkrupp and Triumph Aerostructures were the successors to the original parties to a
long-term agreement that set forth a general framework under which Triumph Aerostructures
purchased aluminum from thyssenkrupp. Under the terms of the long-term agreement, Triumph
Aerostructures (and, according to thyssenkrupp, Triumph Group as well) had an obligation to
purchase inventories of obsolete items from thyssenkrupp if thyssenkrupp was unable to sell those
items after making reasonable efforts to do so. Thyssenkrupp says that in 2019, the Triumph
Entities breached their contractual duties by failing to purchase certain obsolete aluminum.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1146, thyssenkrupp Materials LLC v. Triumph Group Inc., et al.
- 2 -
Thyssenkrupp filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting a claim for breach of
contract against both Triumph Entities. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to arbitrate.
After discovery and a hearing, the arbitrator issued an unreasoned award of $2.9 million in
damages in favor of thyssenkrupp, holding both Triumph Aerostructures and Triumph Group
jointly and severally liable for this amount.
Thyssenkrupp moved the district court to confirm the arbitrator’s award, and the Triumph
Entities moved to vacate. As relevant on appeal, the Triumph Entities argued that the arbitrator
manifestly disregarded the law in holding Triumph Group jointly and severally liable with
Triumph Aerostructures for thyssenkrupp’s damages. The district court granted thyssenkrupp’s
motion to confirm and denied the Triumph Entities’ motion to vacate. The Triumph Entities timely
appealed.
Having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that
the district court erred in confirming the award. Because the reasons why judgment should be
entered for thyssenkrupp have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed
opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its memorandum
opinion filed on January 26, 2022.

-- 2 of 2 --