June 15, 2026 6 min read

Viewing the Green Upgrade of Rigid Foam Through Blowing-Agent Substitution: Costs, Compliance and Order Thresholds

As the July 1 deadline approaches, the PU rigid foam industry is reaching an important environmental-compliance watershed. According to Ministry of Ecology and Environment Announcement No. 28 of 2025, from January 1, 2026, the production of premixed polyols and polyurethane products using HCFC-141b as the blowing agent is prohibited, except for spray polyurethane foam products; from July 1, 2026, the production of spray polyurethane foam products using HCFC-141b as the blowing agent will also be prohibited.

This means premixed polyols and most polyurethane products have already entered the ban stage, while spray rigid foam is about to exit its final transition window. For the industry, this is not simply a matter of switching to another blowing agent; it is a system-wide adjustment affecting formulations, production, construction practices and customer compliance requirements.

1. Policy Deadline Nears: Spray Rigid Foam Enters Its Final Transition Window

In terms of policy timing, January 1, 2026 was the first threshold, mainly targeting premixed polyols and polyurethane products that use HCFC-141b as the blowing agent. In principle, premixed-polyol producers, rigid-foam product manufacturers and related polyurethane product companies other than spray foam can no longer continue using HCFC-141b as a blowing agent in production.

The July 1 deadline mainly targets spray polyurethane foam products. Unlike factory-made rigid-foam boards, pipe shells and other products, spray rigid foam is often formed on site. Its applications include building insulation, cold-storage insulation, fishing-vessel insulation, roof waterproofing and insulation, warehouse insulation and some pipeline insulation. Because construction participants are more dispersed, project scenarios are more complex and regulatory chains are longer, the policy previously granted a longer transition period.

Starting July 1, however, this transition window will also close. Spray polyurethane foam products using HCFC-141b as the blowing agent will then be banned from production. For spray-construction companies, premixed-polyol suppliers and downstream project customers, compliance requirements will shift from “gradual switching” to “mandatory switching.”

Figure 1: Key Timeline for the HCFC-141b Ban

2. The Impact Goes Beyond Blowing Agents: Rigid Foam Systems Will Re-segment

HCFC-141b has historically been widely used in PU rigid foam, mainly because of its foaming effect, thermal-insulation performance, process adaptability and cost advantages. However, a rigid-foam system usually consists of premixed polyols, isocyanates, blowing agents, catalysts, flame retardants and surfactants. Once the blowing agent changes, cell structure, thermal conductivity, dimensional stability, flame-retardant performance, construction window, spray adhesion and curing speed may all change accordingly.

Therefore, companies can hardly complete the upgrade by simply replacing HCFC-141b with another blowing agent. They need to readjust formulation systems and construction parameters. Current substitution routes available to the industry include water-blown systems, hydrocarbon blowing agents, HFCs and HFOs. These routes differ in environmental attributes, cost, equipment requirements, safety management and performance stability.

Water-blown systems and some hydrocarbon routes have relative cost advantages, but they place higher demands on formulations, equipment and on-site safety management. Low-GWP routes such as HFOs have stronger environmental attributes but higher costs, making them more suitable in the near term for customers with higher requirements for performance, certification and export compliance. Although HFCs are not ODS, they have already entered a longer-term greenhouse-gas control framework, so companies cannot evaluate substitution routes based only on immediate cost.

This also means the impact of the ban may not necessarily appear as a sudden increase in rigid-foam demand. It is more likely to show up as a re-segmentation of the market structure. Companies with formulation R&D capabilities, experience applying substitute blowing agents, testing capabilities and compliance-document management will be better positioned to take high-standard orders. Smaller companies that compete mainly on low prices and low compliance costs may face greater operating pressure.

Figure 2: Transmission Path of the HCFC-141b Ban Through the PU Rigid Foam Value Chain

From a cost perspective, substitute blowing agents, formulation validation, equipment adaptation, construction training and testing certification will all raise overall costs. However, this cost pressure may not be fully passed downstream. Demand for building insulation, cold-storage construction, insulated pipelines and some industrial insulation is still affected by real estate, infrastructure schedules, investment appetite and project-payment cycles, and end customers remain price-sensitive.

A more realistic judgment is therefore that the ban itself may not significantly expand total rigid-foam demand, but it will change order structure and profit distribution. Products that are highly compliant, high-performing and traceable may gain stronger bargaining power, while low-priced, opaque products that cannot prove the source of their blowing agents may gradually be excluded from key projects, branded customers and standardized construction scenarios. Environmental regulation will not create demand out of thin air, but it will raise the threshold for entering order systems.

3. Corporate Response Priorities: From Inventory Switching to a Closed Compliance Loop

Premixed-polyol companies are a critical link in this adjustment. Downstream foam companies and construction firms do not necessarily purchase single-component blowing agents directly; instead, they buy premixed-polyol systems that already contain the blowing agent. As a result, premixed-polyol companies are not only formulation providers but also key nodes in the chain of compliance responsibility.

After July 1, the room for HCFC-141b-containing systems to continue flowing into the spray-foam sector will basically close. Premixed-polyol companies need to focus on three issues: first, how to compliantly dispose of existing HCFC-141b-containing inventory; second, whether substitute blowing-agent systems can meet downstream construction and performance requirements; and third, whether contracts, labels, quality-inspection reports, blowing-agent declarations and customer filing materials can form a complete closed loop.

The spray-construction side also needs to upgrade in parallel. The special feature of spray PU rigid foam is on-site formation: construction environment, temperature and humidity, spray thickness, equipment pressure and operator practices all affect final quality. After blowing-agent substitution, construction companies need to become familiar with the operating window of the new system to avoid foam shrinkage, hollow spots, fluctuations in thermal performance, insufficient interlayer adhesion or higher on-site losses.

Figure 3: Response Checklist for Premixed-Polyol and Rigid-Foam Companies Before July 1

In the short term, companies should focus on three tasks: first, complete inventory checks as soon as possible, distinguishing standalone HCFC-141b, HCFC-141b-containing premixed polyols, orders in transit and project inventory; second, complete substitute-system validation and verify performance across scenarios such as cold storage, building insulation, fishing-vessel insulation and pipeline insulation; and third, improve compliance-document management by retaining procurement, sales, filing, test reports, blowing-agent declarations and contract clauses to reduce subsequent traceability risk.

Overall, the HCFC-141b ban entering the July 1 countdown marks a more thorough stage of blowing-agent substitution in the PU rigid foam industry. In the short term, it may bring higher costs, formulation adjustments and construction-adaptation pressure. In the long term, however, it will push the industry away from low-price competition and toward competition based on technology, compliance and service capabilities.

The PU rigid foam market may not expand rapidly because of one ban, but the rules of competition are changing. After July 1, rigid-foam companies will compete not only on price, but also on whether they can prove their products are more environmentally friendly, more stable and more compliant. This may be the deepest impact of the HCFC-141b ban on the polyurethane industry.

Sources: Ministry of Ecology and Environment Announcement No. 28 of 2025 and related policy Q&A; China Polyurethane Industry Association, Regulations on Ozone-Depleting Substances and Compliance Operations for Polyurethane Enterprises.

https://www.pudaily.com/news/65186/hcfc-141b-ban-enters-the-countdown-is-the-pu-rigid-foam-system-about-to-change

Source

      

June 17, 2026

Most Americans say they love working from home. They can skip their commutes, dodge their snippy co-workers and evade their micromanaging bosses. In 2024, nearly 80 percent of workers said they would be happiest if they could work remotely.

Both of us have experienced the advantages of remote work, especially when battling morning sickness or caring for a sick 6-year-old. But on some days, we wouldn’t venture outside or speak face-to-face with another human. We started to wonder whether we — along with the roughly 35 million other Americans who work from home — had stepped into an enormous social experiment. Was remote work as liberating as it felt?

We searched for answers in troves of data, unsure of what we would find. Surveys of over half a million Americans from the last decade and a half revealed an uncomfortable truth: Despite its advantages, remote work has significantly deepened Americans’ isolation and distress. Our estimates, published in Science this month with our collaborator Amanda Pallais, indicate that remote work explains a third of the deterioration in mental health over the last 15 years. Our research doesn’t suggest that work can occur only in the office. But it does mean that employees and companies should make a greater effort to prioritize face-to-face time with colleagues.

Our study compares workers in jobs that could be done remotely, such as finance and software engineering, to workers in jobs that must be done in person. People in remote-capable jobs worked from home three times more often in 2024 than in 2019. As they did, their days became far more solitary. Eighty-four percent of remote workers spend their workday entirely alone. Over half report feeling less connected to their colleagues. Even when communicating online, people working from home receive less feedback from their co-workers and contact fewer people outside their immediate teams.

These workers did not compensate by socializing more outside of work. More days passed with no social contact of any kind. No hello from an office mate, no idle chitchat with a barista, no nod to a fellow commuter. These lost interactions are not trivial. In one study, when commuters were instructed to connect with a stranger near them, they reported being happier than those who continued in silence as usual, much to their own surprise.

With fewer social encounters, workers in jobs that can be remote saw steeper increases in distress, mental health visits and prescriptions for antidepressants than other workers did. This increase in depression does not seem to reflect more recent fears, such as A.I. displacement. It began in 2020 and has not abated, which points to remote work as the driving force.

The pain was not evenly shared. People who lived with their spouse and kids saw their mental health hold fairly steady, while those who lived alone experienced a 20 percent decrease in mental well-being. Overall, we found that the rise of remote work increased distress by 7 percent, which accounts for a third of the total increase from 2011 to 2024.

So why do so many people like remote work, even saying they would accept pay cuts of 4 percent to 10 percent to keep it? One reason is that remote work’s costs are subtle and slow. When loneliness sets in gradually, it is natural to blame other life changes: a new job, a breakup, a fight with a friend, aging. Another reason that some people like remote work is that a half-empty office is not an attractive alternative.

We don’t need to accept this new status quo. The office has been the No. 1 place adults form friendships, outranking houses of worship, children’s schools, neighborhoods and sports teams. Forming and sustaining these friendships almost always requires in-person time: Our brains are wired to connect face-to-face, and even the most advanced digital tools are a poor substitute. To maintain this critical source of connection, workers need doses of in-person time with one another.

Yet the prepandemic norm of being in the office every hour of every workday often crowded out time with friends and family. So, for many of us, the solution is not to rewind the clock to our 2019 ways. Instead, we can form strong bonds by being more intentional about how we work.

Employees can take the initiative to invite colleagues to lunch or organize a happy hour. Of course, structural issues may limit what they can do, especially if some of their colleagues live halfway across the country. And often, individuals’ efforts go unrewarded.

But employers can make it easier to connect. In researching a forthcoming book, we found companies rethinking how to bring people together. Some revamped performance reviews to better reward the too-often invisible work of connecting teams. Others reorganized coffee spaces, replacing atomized coffee machines with centralized hubs that brought colleagues together. Some turned managers into mentor matchmakers setting up weekly one-on-ones for co-workers to analyze their recent wins and frustrations. Such interventions can foster lasting connections, give employees new skills and improve companies’ bottom lines.

Twenty-six years after Robert Putnam warned that Americans were bowling alone, many of us are now typing alone. To ensure that work remains a source of connection, we must change not only where we work, but how we work, so that our jobs continue to bring us together.

Natalia Emanuel and Emma Harrington are labor economists and authors of the forthcoming book “In Person: How Working Together Fuels Creativity, Productivity, and Growth.”

Source

      

by Tyler Durden

Monday, Jun 15, 2026 – 07:40 PM

The average person today can expect to live far longer than someone born in 1960, regardless of where they live.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Bruno Venditti, tracks life expectancy at birth across four World Bank income groups. While high-income countries still have the longest lifespans, the biggest gains have come elsewhere. Upper-middle income countries have added more than three decades to life expectancy, while low-income countries have made substantial progress as well.

The data for this visualization comes from World Bank via FRED. It tracks life expectancy at birth by income group from 1960 to the latest available data (2024).

High-Income Countries Still Lead

High-income countries still have the highest life expectancy, reaching 80.3 years in 2024.

That is up from 68.3 years in 1960, a gain of 12 years. These countries started from a much higher baseline, meaning their gains have been slower but still substantial.

Examples include the U.S., Germany, and Japan.

Upper-Middle Income Countries Saw the Fastest Gains

Upper-middle income countries posted the largest increase, rising from 41.9 years in 1960 to 76.3 years.

That is a gain of 34.4 years, the fastest improvement of any group in the dataset. This category includes countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Much of this improvement coincided with rising incomes, better sanitation, expanded vaccination programs, lower child mortality, and broader access to healthcare. Together, these changes helped push life expectancy in many middle-income countries toward levels once seen only in the world’s wealthiest economies.

The Global Life Expectancy Gap Has Narrowed

In 1960, people in high-income countries lived about 27 years longer than those in low-income countries.

Today, the gap stands at roughly 16 years. While a significant difference remains, low-income countries have added more than 23 years to average life expectancy since 1960. In other words, much of the world’s longevity progress has come from countries that started furthest behind.

However, the remaining gap shows that income, healthcare access, and living conditions continue to shape longevity worldwide.

Editor’s note: I was born in 1959!

Haha

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/how-world-added-decades-life-expectancy

Source

      

Jun 16, 2026, 11:02 AM ETHuntsman Corporation (HUN) Stock

Huntsman Corporation (HUN) M&A Call June 16, 2026 8:00 AM EDT

Company Participants

Steve Keenan – Director of Investor Relations
Kenneth Lane – President, CEO & Director
Peter Huntsman – Chairman, President & CEO
Philip Lister – Executive VP & CFO

Steve Keenan
Director of Investor Relations

Thanks, Chelsea, and welcome, everyone. I’m joined on the call today by Ken Lane, President and Chief Executive Officer of Olin; and Peter Huntsman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Huntsman. Todd Slater, Olin’s Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Phil Lister, Huntsman’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, will participate in the Q&A portion of today’s call. Before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone that today’s discussion regarding Olin and Huntsman includes forward-looking statements, including expectations regarding the proposed transaction. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, and we encourage you to review our related SEC filings for more detail. I would now like to turn the call over to Ken.

Kenneth Lane
President, CEO & Director

Thank you, Steve, and good morning, everyone. I appreciate you joining us. Today is a momentous one for Olin and Huntsman, two storied American companies with a shared commitment to safety, integrity, operational excellence and serving customers around the world, all while creating value for our shareholders. .

The all-stock merger of equals we announced this morning will create a greater than $12 billion chemicals leader with a strong North American anchor and complementary European and Asian portfolios. By integrating Olin’s strong upstream manufacturing and feedstock position with Huntsman’s differentiated downstream capabilities, we will have a world-scale, vertically integrated platform that is better positioned to serve customers and deliver resilient financial performance.

The combined portfolio also creates tangible integration opportunities across key value chains, supporting a lower cost position through the cycle. These strategic tailwinds are paired with more than $400 million of cost synergies and integration benefits. The combined business will have strong cash flow to support disciplined capital allocation including near-term deleveraging, returning capital to shareholders and investing in high-return growth projects.

I’ve spent my career in chemicals across both commodity and downstream businesses, including running a global polyurethanes business. I understand how to get the best out of these businesses in many respects, that means running them as complementary, but separate, and I’m confident we can do that while also delivering on the benefits of this transaction.

Olin’s stated strategy is to focus on strengthening our core businesses, maximizing valuations where we can achieve attractive returns through innovation and operational improvements. This transaction hits those marks. Further, as Olin Huntsman will be led by a team with the right experience and shared foundational values to ensure we are capturing all the opportunities available to us.

I’d now like to turn it over to Peter Huntsman to walk through the transaction structure and combined platform in greater detail. But before I do, I’ll take a moment to recognize Olin’s dedicated employees whose commitment and focus has made today’s milestone possible. I’m very proud to be part of the Olin team. I’d also like to acknowledge Peter and his team. As you might expect, over the course of reaching this agreement, Peter and I have spent a good deal of time together. It’s been clear what a world-class team Huntsman also has with great expertise, and most importantly, truly held values that we at Olin share.

Peter, I’m looking forward to working with you and the other directors of the Board. I know OlinHuntsman is going to do great things.

Peter Huntsman
Chairman, President & CEO

Ken, thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for taking the time to join us. It is an honor to be here today, and I echo Ken’s enthusiasm for the opportunities ahead. As our industry continues to globalize, we compete more today against countries than companies, trade policies and global supply chains more than ever before. The opportunities this merger creates enables us to generate greater value for our shareholders, delivers exceptional services and products for our customers and provide greater opportunities and stabilities for our associates. This merger of equals takes 2 great companies and create a much stronger global leader.

So let me provide some further detail. Let’s turn to Slide #5. We have structured this combination as an all-stock merger of equals, which we believe capitalizes on the strength of both companies and present the best value creation opportunities for both sets of shareholders. Under the terms of the agreement, Huntsman shareholders will receive 0.576 shares of Olin for each Huntsman share they own, resulting in Olin shareholders owning approximately 54.5% and Huntsman shareholders owning approximately 45.5% of the combined company. The combined company will be named OlinHuntsman Corporation and will be headquartered in the Woodlands, Texas.

As Ken mentioned, we have identified more than $400 million of cost synergies and integration benefits. Our respective teams have spent a great deal of time together identifying and validating these synergies, and Ken will provide greater detail on how we will achieve them later in this presentation. The transaction is expected to close in the first half of 2027, subject to receipt of regulatory approvals and satisfaction of other customary closing conditions, including approval from both Olin and Huntsman shareholders. Following the close, I will serve as Non-Exec Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Ken will assume the role of Chief Executive Officer. Phil Lister, will serve as Chief Financial Officer; and Todd Slater, will serve as the Chief Integration Officer.

Let’s turn to Slide #6. Let me spend a moment on the scale and benefits of the combined company. Using 2025 reported financials on a pro forma basis, the combined company would have generated approximately $12.5 billion in revenue and approximately $1.3 billion of adjusted EBITDA, including expected cost synergies. We will be anchored in cost advantage in North American assets and feedstocks with integrated portfolios that create multiple channels for improved economics and value creation across a broad range of attractive end markets. We also have identified opportunities in Europe that capitalize on our integration and downstream capabilities. With Huntsman’s relationships in these global end markets, we have a unique opportunity to deliver for our customers more profitably by leveraging Olin assets to improve efficiency across the value chain.

We can turn to Slide #7. Our industry has changed a lot over the last 5 years. Cost position, reliability and integration matters more than ever. That is why I believe this type of integration is essential to driving optionality and higher profitability now and into the future. You see on Slide 7, Olin brings advantaged upstream leadership, including an efficient cost position from U.S. Gulf Coast economics and world-scale chemical assets. Huntsman brings downstream application expertise, including leading positions in MDI and polyurethane systems ride and advanced materials, supported by deep end-market customer relationships. Put simply, we believe this combination will drive value creation for our shareholders and unlock greater profitability.

So looking at Slide 8, there is a clear indication of how integration creates value for both companies across several key value chains. The combination brings together selected Olin and Huntsman capabilities across electrochemical units to polyurethanes, electrochemical units to amines and to epoxies. Olin is strong at the front end of the value chain with the ability to make chlorine and caustic soda safely, reliably and at world scale. Huntsman is strong downstream, particularly in polyurethanes, amines, advanced materials and formulation-driven applications. By combining these capabilities, we create more reliability and better integrated supply chains capable of generating greater value to shareholders and customers.

For example, today, Olin has several existing outlets for chlorine, including vinyls, epoxy, water treatment, chlorinated organics, merchant chlorine and hydrochloric acid. Through the combination, OlinHuntsman will have additional outlets across polyurethanes, amines and advanced materials broadening participation across the value chain. It also creates a vertically integrated U.S. MDI producer. Starting in 2031 as current supply contracts expire, we expect to add an additional $100 million or more of incremental synergies. The result is a more closely integrated set of chlorine-linked value chains that benefits both businesses and positions the combined company for future downstream opportunities across high-growth end markets.

Before turning our concluding comments back to Ken, I’d like to comment that from the first meeting nearly 4 months ago, we have both seen this as a merger of opportunities where the sum of the parts create greater benefits than both companies remaining separate. I have found in Ken, a leader that shares a vision and the capability to create greater value and opportunity in this merger. Ken?

Kenneth Lane
President, CEO & Director

Thank you, Peter. The expected cost synergies and integration benefits from this combination are significant and actionable. The companies have identified more than $400 million of value with clear line of sight. Of that, we see $300 million of synergies with much of that achieved in the first 24 months following close. These synergies are expected to come from several areas, including purchasing and raw materials integration, optimization of operations and SG&A savings.

As we’ve said, we also expect to capture more value internally with more than $100 million of additional raw material integration benefits in 2031 due to expiring contracts and Olin stepping in to fill supply. We expect the cost to achieve these synergies to be approximately $150 million to $200 million.

In addition, OlinHuntsman is expected to benefit from approximately $125 million of cash tax benefits from acceleration of tax NOLs, which is not included in the synergy figure. Both Olin and Huntsman have executed complex integrations before, including the Dow Chlorine Products business, where Olin delivered more synergies than originally announced, and Huntsman’s track record of integrating multiple acquisitions of different sizes and complexity over the years. We’ll bring that same discipline and accountability to this combination.

OlinHuntsman is expected to have improved profitability and cash flow through the cycle. As we mentioned earlier, despite a challenging market backdrop on a 2025 pro forma basis, OlinHuntsman would have generated over $900 million of adjusted EBITDA. When including the expected synergies of $400 million, the combined company would have generated approximately $1.3 billion of adjusted EBITDA.

Looking across the 2021 to 2025 period on a pro forma basis, OlinHuntsman would have generated approximately $2.7 billion of average adjusted EBITDA, including the $400 million of synergies. We believe this shows the capability of the combined company to deliver compelling profitability, substantial free cash flow and importantly, greater resilience across varying operating environments.

On the following slide, we provide some more detail on the pro forma financial profile of the business. We expect to have a healthy balance sheet with an evenly weighted maturity profile, no bond maturities before 2029, and an attractive blended cost of debt of approximately 5%. Pro forma year-end 2025 net leverage would have been 4.6 times or approximately 3.2 times with full synergy implementation. And as mentioned earlier, one of our initial priorities for our free cash flow will be to deleverage.

Beyond deleveraging, our cash flow will be an engine of shareholder value creation. First, maintenance capital. We expect to invest approximately $400 million per year on a combined basis to ensure safe and reliable operations. Second, the dividend. We expect to continue a stable dividend policy supported by resilient through-cycle cash flows of the combined company. And with excess cash, we’ll prioritize returning cash to shareholders and pursuing growth projects that meet a high return threshold.

To summarize, this combination is a compelling opportunity for both sets of shareholders today and into the future. Together, Olin and Huntsman will create a greater than $12 billion North American chemicals leader that will better serve customers across diverse and growing end markets. The combination creates a vertically integrated platform with a structurally lower cost position. We’ll approach integration with discipline, including how we segment and manage the combined company so that integrated manufacturing and downstream businesses can each succeed.

OlinHuntsman will benefit from a highly experienced management team with a shared focus on value creation. This strategic combination creates greater resilience, stronger cash generation and a balance sheet that will open multiple avenues for creating value for our shareholders.

Jeffrey Zekauskas
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division

What are the cash costs of achieving the synergies? And for Peter, Huntsman may have had the possibility of combining with an MDI producer. Why was it better over a longer period of time to not wait and look for an MDI opportunity rather than to merge in more of a diversification transaction?

Peter Huntsman
Chairman, President & CEO

Jeff, excellent question. I think that as we look at the MDI industry, I think that you’re probably limited to some degree with various antitrust issues on a global basis. But more importantly than just MDI, which is certainly an important part of our company, but it is certainly not the entirety of our company. And as we look at a transaction that is going to impact our downstream advanced materials, our amines, our MDI, really across the entire supply chain, this has a much greater impact on that than I think just adding more MDI tonnage, being able to have a very competitive North American cost advantage, being able to have integration opportunity in Europe.

And I think that as we look at the growing markets in Asia for both companies, we see opportunities there to leverage existing contracts, existing customer relationships and so forth. So I think there probably would be a space there for an expansion in MDI. But as I look across the board, again, across what is going to have the greatest impact for creating shareholder value across the board, this would have a much greater impact.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4915335-huntsman-corporation-hun-m-and-a-call-transcript?mailingid=46182081&messageid=2800&position=rta_analysis_fullsummary_main_3_textlink&serial=46182081.96&source=email_2800

Source

      

June 11, 2026 4 min read

Recently, the price inversion between propylene oxide (PO) and flexible slabstock polyols has drawn market attention.

Based on mainstream prices in Shandong, this round of inversion was not a one-day fluctuation. Since mid-May, the spread between flexible slabstock polyols and PO has gradually turned negative. On May 14, flexible slabstock polyols were CNY 250/tonne lower than PO. By May 29, the inversion widened to CNY 650/tonne, marking one of the deepest levels so far this year. Entering June, the inversion narrowed somewhat but had not fully repaired. On June 3, mainstream flexible slabstock polyols prices in Shandong stood at CNY 8,550/tonne, while PO was at CNY 8,900/tonne, leaving a negative spread of CNY 350/tonne.

Unit: CNY/tonne; spread = flexible slabstock polyols minus PO.

The charts show that flexible slabstock polyols maintained a positive spread over PO from January to April, with the spread once widening in March and April. However, after entering May, the spread quickly moved into negative territory. This suggests that the current inversion is not simply a pricing mismatch, but a reflection of diverging pricing power between upstream and downstream markets.

PO: More Concentrated Supply, Stronger Price Resilience

Compared with polyether polyols, the PO market has fewer producers and a higher degree of supply concentration. Producers also differ in process routes and cost structures. When margins are squeezed or losses deepen, some higher-cost producers tend to reduce operating rates, shut down units, or delay restarts to curb supply. Once supply tightens, PO prices can find support more easily.

Although PO prices fell sharply earlier, they later rebounded continuously. This indicates that PO pricing is not driven solely by weak demand, but is also affected by operating rates and producers’ willingness to defend prices.

Polyols: More Fragmented Capacity, Prices More Demand-Led

On the polyols side, new capacity has continued to come online in recent years, while market participants remain relatively fragmented. Different producers face different inventory, order, and sales pressures. When demand weakens, producers are more likely to offer concessions to move cargoes.

During June 1-5, domestic flexible slabstock polyols prices continued to bottom out. Bulk ex-works offers in North China were roughly CNY 8,300-8,700/tonne, down CNY 400-600/tonne from the previous week. Downstream sponge and home furnishing sectors were entering the off-season, purchases were mainly small-volume just-in-time orders, large orders were limited, and the sustainability of export demand still required attention. Against this backdrop, polyols prices lacked upward momentum.

Cost Structure: Pressure Is More Obvious for PO-Buying Producers

PO accounts for a high share of polyols production costs, usually around 80%. In theory, when PO prices remain high, polyols prices should move up accordingly; otherwise, margins will be compressed quickly.

However, polyols are not priced purely on a cost-plus basis. Final transaction prices are also determined by downstream acceptance, peer competition, and inventory pressure. Producers with integrated PO supply have a cost advantage and can tolerate lower polyols quotations, while non-integrated producers that buy PO externally face more rigid feedstock costs and greater pressure in a low-price competition environment.

Weaker Feedstocks Have Not Resolved the Inversion

It is worth noting that weaker propylene and liquid chlorine prices have not effectively repaired the inversion. In early June, Shandong propylene moved weakly, while liquid chlorine prices also softened. The cost side did not provide strong upward support for PO.

Even so, PO prices rebounded after earlier declines. This suggests that the current pricing driver is more about supply adjustment than pure cost movement. In other words, the inversion is not caused by PO costs being passively pushed higher; rather, PO is more sensitive to losses, while polyols simply lack the ability to rise.

Outlook: Repair Depends on Which Side Gives Way First

Looking ahead, there are three possible paths for the spread to repair. First, PO supply remains ample and prices continue to concede. Second, downstream replenishment supports a rebound in polyols prices. Third, polyols producers continue to absorb the inversion through margin compression.

In the short term, if demand does not show a clear improvement, the third scenario may remain the main path.

Therefore, this round of PO-polyols inversion is not merely a “cost inversion.” It is a redistribution of margins along the value chain during a weak demand cycle. The upstream side is defending prices through higher concentration and supply adjustment, while the downstream side is giving up margins amid loose capacity and insufficient orders. For polyols producers, the real pressure is not only that PO prices remain high, but that when PO still has support, polyols have already lost their ability to pass through costs.

https://www.pudaily.com/news/65127/explaining-the-anomaly-why-are-polyether-polyols-cheaper-than-po

Source

      

Download as PDFJune 16, 2026 6:00am EDT

Complementary upstream and downstream capabilities to enhance integration and enable the combined company to better create value across cycles, products and regions

$400+ million of identified and actionable cost synergies and integration benefits

Enhanced financial profile and cost position expected to provide greater performance through the cycle, cash flow generation and growth optionality

Ken Lane to serve as Chief Executive Officer and Peter Huntsman to serve as non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of the combined company

Joint investor call and webcast scheduled for June 16, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time

CLAYTON, Missouri and THE WOODLANDS, Texas, June 16, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Olin Corporation (NYSE: OLN) and Huntsman Corporation (NYSE: HUN) today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement to combine in an all-stock merger of equals to create a leading North American chemicals company. The transaction is expected to generate significant value for shareholders of both companies, with more than $400 million in total identified cost synergies and integration benefits.

The combined organization, which will be renamed OlinHuntsman Corporation (“OlinHuntsman”) following the close of the transaction, will benefit from enhanced scale, scope and expanded chlorine optionality, enabling it to create value across markets and cycles. The vertical integration of Olin and Huntsman’s highly complementary upstream and downstream businesses brings together cost-advantaged North American assets and feedstocks with differentiated formulations and high-value advanced materials. From its global manufacturing platform, OlinHuntsman will deliver to diverse and growing end markets including automotive, construction and infrastructure, and industrial applications. OlinHuntsman will have a structurally lower cost position and an expanded ability to convert advantaged Electrochemical Units production into downstream materials, unlocking more opportunities to grow.

“This combination provides a compelling opportunity for Olin and Huntsman to create a more resilient and value-focused chemicals company anchored in North America,” said Ken Lane, President and Chief Executive Officer of Olin. “Huntsman has built an impressive portfolio of polyurethane systems, formulation technologies and advanced materials serving technical, application-driven end markets. By integrating those capabilities with Olin’s world-scale chemicals assets and operations and identified synergies and benefits, we will create an industry leader with greater flexibility to serve customers across the value chain, generate stronger cash flow across the cycle and pursue opportunities that neither business could fully capture on its own. I’m excited by the opportunity to lead OlinHuntsman and deliver long-term value for our shareholders, customers, employees and communities.”

“As our industry continues to globalize, we compete more today against countries, than companies, trade policies and global supply chains than ever before,” said Peter Huntsman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Huntsman. “The opportunities this merger creates enable us to generate greater value for our shareholders, deliver exceptional service and products for our customers and provide greater stability and opportunities for our associates. This merger of equals takes two great companies and creates a much stronger global leader.”

Strategic and Financial Rationale

• Creates a $12B+ North American Chemicals Leader. Together Olin and Huntsman would have 2025 revenue of approximately $12.5 billion on a combined company basis. Complementary portfolios and enhanced geographic footprint, including a significant presence in the U.S. Gulf Coast, will position OlinHuntsman to capitalize on regional sector dynamics. This, along with its presence in Europe and Asia, will enable it to better serve customers across key markets. Olin’s ammunition business, Winchester, will continue to operate as a key business within the combined company, growing its industry-leading brand and deepening its long-term relationships with sporting, law enforcement and military customers.
  
• Vertical Integration Improves Cost Position. The transaction will combine Olin’s manufacturing and feedstock capabilities, including chlorine and caustic soda, with Huntsman’s downstream products and formulation expertise. This platform will enable OlinHuntsman to grow with customers at multiple points in the value chain, utilize lower-cost producer economics to drive value globally and improve margins and cash flow through a more efficient operating model.
  
• $400M+ Cost Synergies and Integration Benefits. Olin and Huntsman have identified more than $300 million of cost synergies and integration benefits, with the vast majority realized within 24 months and all expected by the end of year three. These synergies will be driven by purchasing and raw material integration, optimization of operations and SG&A savings. The companies have also identified an additional $100 million of raw material integration benefits starting in 2031. In addition to the $400M+ synergies, OlinHuntsman expects to realize approximately $125 million of cash tax benefits through the acceleration of Net Operating Losses.
  
• Enhanced Scale and Disciplined Capital Allocation Drive Shareholder Value. The all-stock merger of equals structure will preserve balance sheet strength, and the combination is expected to improve earnings and cash flow generation through the cycle. OlinHuntsman will prioritize disciplined capital allocation focused on deploying maintenance capital to support safe and reliable operations, a stable dividend policy, near-term deleveraging and the deployment of future excess cash toward shareholder returns and high-return organic and inorganic growth projects.

Leadership, Governance and Headquarters

The combined company will benefit from a highly experienced management team and Board of Directors, drawing from both organizations. Upon closing of the transaction, current Olin President and Chief Executive Officer, Ken Lane, will serve as Chief Executive Officer of OlinHuntsman. Current Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Huntsman, Peter Huntsman, will serve as non-executive Chairman of OlinHuntsman’s Board of Directors. Current Huntsman Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Phil Lister, will serve as the Chief Financial Officer of the combined company.

OlinHuntsman’s Board of Directors will consist of ten members, with equal representation from Olin and Huntsman, including Peter Huntsman and Ken Lane.

To underscore the commitment to deliver on the identified synergies, Todd Slater, current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Olin, will serve as Chief Integration Officer of OlinHuntsman, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. A Strategic Integration Committee of OlinHuntsman’s Board of Directors will oversee the integration and synergy realization.

Upon closing of the transaction, OlinHuntsman will be headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.

Transaction Details

Under the terms of the agreement, Huntsman shareholders will receive 0.5476 shares in Olin for every one (1) share of Huntsman. Upon completion of the transaction, Olin shareholders will own approximately 54.5% and Huntsman shareholders will own approximately 45.5% of the combined company.

Peter Huntsman further stated, “Ken and I agreed to use an at-the-market exchange ratio using volume-weighted average prices over the trailing 30 days, measured as of the close of June 12, 2026. This delivers a premium to Huntsman’s shareholders relative to the historical averages while reflecting current market conditions. It is also equitable for Olin’s shareholders, smoothing out share price movements from last week’s trading. Looking ahead, our shared focus is on capturing the significant long-term value this transaction creates for both sets of shareholders.”

The transaction has been unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies and is expected to close in the first half of 2027, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including receipt of required regulatory approvals and the approval of Olin’s shareholders and Huntsman’s shareholders.

Advisors

Lazard is serving as financial advisor to Olin, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Sidley Austin LLP are serving as legal counsel.

Citi and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as financial advisors to Huntsman and Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as legal counsel. David Fox & Co. LLC acted as advisor to Huntsman.

Conference Call and Additional Materials

Olin and Huntsman will host a joint investor conference call today at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time to discuss the transaction.

The conference call will be available via live webcast on the investor relations section of each company’s website at www.olin.com/investors/investors-overview/ and www.huntsman.com/investors, or directly at the following web address:

Associated presentation materials will also be available for viewing on the respective websites prior to the call.

The conference call can also be accessed by dialing:

About Olin

Olin Corporation is a leading vertically integrated global manufacturer and distributor of chemical products and a leading U.S. manufacturer of ammunition. The chemical products produced include chlorine and caustic soda, vinyls, epoxies, chlorinated organics, bleach, hydrogen, and hydrochloric acid. Winchester’s principal manufacturing facilities produce and distribute sporting ammunition, law enforcement ammunition, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, industrial cartridges, and clay targets.

Visit www.olin.com for more information on Olin Corporation.

About Huntsman

Huntsman Corporation is a publicly traded global manufacturer and marketer of diversified chemical products with 2025 revenues of approximately $6 billion from our continuing operations. Our chemical products number in the thousands and are sold worldwide to manufacturers serving a broad and diverse range of consumer and industrial end markets. We operate more than 55 manufacturing, R&D and operations facilities in approximately 25 countries and employ approximately 6,000 associates within our continuing operations. For more information about Huntsman, please visit the company’s website at www.huntsman.com.

https://www.huntsman.com/news/media-releases/detail/626/olin-and-huntsman-announce-transformative-merger-of-equals

Source

      

Sleep Number files Chapter 11, enters agreement to sell company to Sleep Country Canada

Sheila Long O’Mara //Executive Editor, Furniture Today//June 12, 2026

MINNEAPOLIS — Sleep Number has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and entered into an agreement that would combine the company with Sleep Country Canada, creating what executives describe as a leading North American mattress and bedding business.

The company announced this morning that it has initiated a voluntary Chapter 11 sale process in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. As part of that process, Sleep Country Canada will serve as the stalking horse bidder in a court-supervised sale.

The proposed transaction remains subject to higher and better offers, court approval and other customary closing conditions. Sleep Number executives said the company expects to continue normal operations throughout the restructuring process.

“For 40 years, Sleep Number has been a leader in sleep innovation, helping millions of customers improve their health and well-being through personalized sleep solutions,” said Linda Findley, president and CEO. “While we have made meaningful progress advancing our turnaround efforts and strengthening our operations, our capital structure remains unsustainable.”

The filing marks a turn for one of the bedding industry’s most recognizable brands and comes amid an ongoing wave of consolidation across the mattress category. The company lists assets of between $500 million to $1 billion, and liabilities of between $1 billion and $10 billion.

Sleep Number said it expects to secure up to $260 million in debtor-in-possession financing, including up to $65 million in new financing, to support operations during the court-supervised process. The company said the financing, combined with cash generated through operations, is expected to provide sufficient liquidity while the sale process moves forward.

The company also sought to reassure customers and retail partners that business will continue as usual. Sleep Number stores remain open, its e-commerce platform continues to accept orders, and the company’s connected smart bed infrastructure and mobile app will remain operational.

The company has been working to improve performance through a broad turnaround strategy that included the largest product redesign in nearly a decade, the launch of a new integrated marketing campaign and efforts to reduce costs and improve profitability.

Findley said the agreement with Sleep Country Canada emerged following a review of strategic alternatives and a sale process designed to address the company’s financial challenges.

“We are confident that moving forward with the Sleep Country Canada agreement and this court-supervised sale process will enable us to address our financial constraints,” she said. “It will also position us to expand our business, helping more people achieve their best sleep both in the United States, and through future international expansion.”

For Sleep Country Canada, the transaction provides an opportunity to add Sleep Number’s proprietary smart bed technology and sleep wellness platform to its portfolio while expanding its presence in the U.S. market.

“We have long admired Sleep Number, its game-changing personalized sleep products and the talented team behind them,” said Stewart Schaefer, president and CEO of Sleep Country Canada. “Together, we see a tremendous opportunity to build on our complementary strengths and accelerate growth across the United States while introducing Sleep Number’s innovative sleep solutions to consumers in Canada and other markets.”

As part of the restructuring process, Sleep Number said it will continue evaluating its retail footprint. The company has filed a motion seeking court approval to reject leases associated with 44 non-operational locations that had already been closed and were not serving customers.

The company said its goal is to maintain as many retail locations as possible based on profitability.

https://www.furnituretoday.com/financial/sleep-number-files-chapter-11-enters-agreement-to-sell-company-to-sleep-country-canada

Source

      

Jeffrey Tate
Chief Financial Officer

Great. Yes. Thanks, Mike, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. So before we get into the Q&A, I’d just like to share some insights on the current macroeconomic backdrop, as well as Dow’s execution, as well as our financial position. So on the macro side, global demand across our key end markets remains largely consistent with our prior updates and the supply picture continues to favor both Dow as well as the industry. On execution, all three of Dow’s operating segments are performing well as the second quarter progresses. And as it relates to our financial position, Dow’s balance sheet is solid, and our self-help actions were designed to build a more agile and resilient company that outperforms peers across the cycle.

So turning to Slide 2. Let me start with the macro backdrop. We’re continuing to characterize the current environment as relatively stable on the demand side, but increasingly constrained and more complex on the supply side.

So far this quarter, we are seeing higher volumes when compared to the same period over the past several years. And specific to global polyethylene, which goes into essential applications like packaging for food preservation, demand remains resilient. And this is evidenced by our strong pricing actions continuing to take hold. Additionally, we are seeing stability in both consumer and infrastructure applications, largely due to typical seasonal demand uplifts that we expected. And while some reports are showing subdued consumer confidence in many regions, purchasing patterns tell a different story. Retail spending for do-it-yourself and coatings-related applications is stable going into traditionally high seasonal periods.

Now the one area that is showing signs of declining demand since April is across automotive markets as consumers continue to delay large purchases. And while high fuel prices are driving some increased interest in electric vehicles, we have not yet seen that translate into increased sales.

Now in terms of supply dynamics, a meaningful portion of global oil, ethylene and polyethylene capacity remains off-line, constrained or otherwise disrupted as a result of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Now given the scale of these supply constraints, we believe the fundamentals are increasingly supportive of tighter near- to medium-term markets. So a conflict resolution and subsequent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz would begin to restore supply, but the impact would not reverse overnight. With capacity disruptions and inventories depleted, it will take several quarters for supply chains to normalize and inventories to rebuild.

Additionally, significant infrastructure across the Middle East has been damaged, prolonging the impact of the conflict further out than the timing of any potential resolution. Rapidly escalating petrochemical prices have led to cautious buying behavior in select areas, which is to be expected. Global oil inventories are also rapidly declining, reaching multi-year lows following a large build throughout 2025. And as we enter peak demand season, stockpiles are being drawn down at a record pace and the world is quickly approaching operational floor levels. The Americas, however, remain advantaged. Dow continues to benefit from strong feedstock availability in the region, well-supplied natural gas markets and elevated oil-to-gas spreads, reinforcing the region’s structural cost advantage and increasing export opportunities.

So in summary, demand remains largely stable and supply dynamics remain constructive. Over time, this combination should further support the current constructive pricing and margin environment.

Now turning to Slide 3. Constructive industry dynamics paired with our differentiated portfolio positions Dow well to capture meaningful earnings upside, both from an operational and commercial standpoint. We’ve already seen positive momentum from our global pricing actions, but with that, it’s important to note that pricing still remains below prior peak levels despite what we would characterize as an unprecedented supply environment. So there is a disconnect between supply disruption and full price realization, which we expect to continue improving over time.

And this was evidenced in April when pricing in many parts of the portfolio settled stronger than consultant forecast. In our largest operating segment, Packaging & Specialty Plastics, roughly 80%, 8-0, of our portfolio is tied to higher value, more resilient applications. Global polyethylene demand remains robust, especially in the Americas. And while we saw some prebuying activity in Asia and Europe, it has been followed by normal customer purchasing behavior. Additionally, we have seen no change globally in our order books regarding order cancellations, which is a positive sign of underlying demand and support for future margin stability.

In addition to the price increase that was implemented in April, we have a $0.20 price increase announced for the month of June, supported by industry market dynamics and historically tight supply. At the same time, we’re maintaining flexibility on our asset base, including progressing planned maintenance on our Terneuzen 3 cracker, our lowest cost asset in the European region, which we anticipate restarting this month. The work was completed on budget and on an adjusted time line that supported both idling of the asset in mid-2025 and a subsequent restart in line with the regional market demand.

And in our Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure segment, supply-demand dynamics remain constructive, supporting positive pricing momentum across key value chains, and our order books for the segment are strong relative to prior periods.

Performance Materials & Coatings is entering a seasonally stronger demand period, especially in coatings, where we expect both near-term volume growth and margin expansion. Additionally, we are making significant progress against one of our largest near-term self-help actions, the shutdown of our higher-cost siloxanes unit in Barry, United Kingdom, which we began last month. The team executed the work safely, on budget and several weeks ahead of schedule.

So looking across the entire Dow portfolio, our key differentiators continue to be our feedstock flexibility in Europe, our geographic and asset integration, especially in the cost advantage Americas and the agile regional supply chains we built in every business that allow us to adapt and respond quickly. That combination allows us to capture upside when conditions improve while maintaining discipline during periods of volatility. Going forward, we’re focused on executing with discipline, driving pricing in every business and in every geography and leveraging our structural advantages to deliver consistent performance.

So with all the puts and takes, we expect to deliver second quarter earnings of approximately $2.2 billion, which is above current consensus and roughly 10% above our prior guidance. This is largely driven by continued resilience in polyethylene demand and pricing as well as margin upside in Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure.

Michael Sison
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division

But anybody on the webcast, I am live on Bloomberg Messenger, if you do have a question, just send it to me. But I guess just let’s start with the better-than-expected 2Q, a little bit $200 million better than your initial guidance. Any color between the segments or the business units that is driving that upside?

Jeffrey Tate
Chief Financial Officer

Sure, Mike. Even when we announced our earnings back at the end of April, one of the things that we did highlight is that we saw more potential upside than we did downside to our original guide, which was $2 billion. And in that original guide, there were two key things that we felt like there could be that upside that will come to fruition. And we’re seeing this materialize really across the entire portfolio, but two things really stand out. Obviously, the strong pricing momentum that we captured not only from the $0.10 in March, but also the $0.30 in April that we were capturing, which was higher than consultant forecast at the time. Consultant forecast were projecting $0.20 for April. And so capturing that $0.30 gave us a little bit more upside.

But we also, in our Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure segment because of tightness that you continue to see in the industry on supply, have seen both polyols and MDI, really capture some of that upside for 2Q as well. So when you think about it, consensus right now is at $2.1 billion, which more than likely captured a lot of that polyethylene pricing for April. But then that additional upside that we’re seeing above consensus right now is really driven by what we’re seeing coming out of our II&I segment for both polyols and MDI.

Michael Sison
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division

Okay. We’ve seen price increases in MDI and the polyols side. Benzene is up though a lot. Is it the spread that has improved? Or is demand a little bit better?

Jeffrey Tate
Chief Financial Officer

Well, I would say, obviously, we’re going into a higher demand season, right, here. And for us, and this is more of an overall Dow statement, for second quarter, June is really that peak demand month for us, where we capture about 40% of our volume during the month of June for the second quarter. So we’re going to be going into that ramp of the high seasonal volumes in June, while at the same time, capturing a lot of the pricing activity that we had already in the marketplace for II&I, A lot of that driven again by the tightness of supply.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4913332-dow-inc-dow-presents-at-16th-annual-wells-fargo-industrials-and-materials-conference?mailingid=46083034&messageid=2800&position=rta_analysis_fullsummary_main_3_textlink&serial=46083034.5247&source=email_2800

Source

      

2026-06-10 09:11:05Source:ChemNet中文

Hartley LLP, a U.S. law firm, announced that in the antitrust litigation regarding polyurethane raw materials, following BASF’s lead in reaching a settlement, the plaintiffs have finalized a second settlement agreement with Covestro’s U.S. subsidiary.

Previously, BASF reached the first settlement with the plaintiffs, with a settlement amount of $3 million. The settlement amount related to Covestro this time was not disclosed, but it is reported to be several times that of the former. Both agreements are still subject to formal court approval. Jason Hartley, a partner at the law firm, stated that they will continue to advance claims against the remaining defendants.

Both parties submitted an application on May 4, 2026, requesting court approval for the BASF settlement agreement. According to the agreement, BASF will pay $3 million and cooperate with the plaintiffs’ related work in exchange for litigation immunity, although the company denies all related allegations. Shortly thereafter, on May 8, the plaintiffs completed the second settlement negotiations with Covestro’s U.S. subsidiary.

Court documents mentioned that the first settlement serves as an “ice-breaking move” in the case, which not only saves judicial resources but is also expected to prompt the remaining defendants to participate in negotiations.

Jurisdiction Ruled Several Times: Only Covestro’s U.S. Subcompany Involved in Litigation

Throughout the trial of this case, disputes over jurisdiction were constant. In January 2026, the U.S. District Court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit against Covestro’s parent company due to lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the independent legal personality of the enterprise should be respected, and relying solely on the parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient to bring a foreign entity under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

However, this ruling does not apply to Covestro’s U.S. subsidiary, Covestro LLC, which remains a defendant in the case. The settlement agreement reached this time also targets only this U.S. subsidiary.

Case Origin: Filed in 2018 Accusing Companies of Conspiring to Raise Prices

This diisocyanate antitrust lawsuit (Case No.: 2:18-mc-01001) is being tried by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the case began in June 2018.

A group of MDI and TDI purchasers filed a class-action lawsuit, accusing BASF, Dow Chemical, Huntsman, and other chemical companies of colluding to limit production, using their market supply dominance and the lack of alternative product categories to conspire to manipulate prices and artificially inflate the market. All implicated companies have denied the allegations, stating that the lawsuit stems from a previous inconclusive investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Tortuous Proceedings: Jurisdiction Disputes Fluctuated Repeatedly

The path of the case proceedings has been tortuous, with jurisdiction objections being the main point of contention:

In March 2020, the local judge dismissed jurisdiction objections raised by companies such as BASF, Covestro, Mitsui Chemicals, MCNS, and Wanhua Chemical, determining that existing evidence could support the continuation of the lawsuit, citing clues such as synchronized price increases, deliberate production stoppages and supply cuts, advance communication on pricing between companies, and private industry gatherings.

In 2022, the case was reassigned to a new presiding judge. After a review of facts related to jurisdiction, Covestro and Wanhua Chemical again filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

In January 2026, the court ruled again that it could not exercise jurisdiction over Covestro’s parent company and Wanhua Chemical, thus ending claims against the two foreign parent companies.

Plaintiff’s Statement: Comprehensive Value of Settlement Exceeds Continued Litigation

In the documents submitting the application for approval of the BASF settlement agreement, the plaintiffs stated that since the case was filed in 2018, there has been intense contention between the parties in various stages of the litigation, and it is anticipated that disputes will continue during the subsequent trial.

After a comprehensive assessment, it was concluded that this settlement plan can provide actual economic compensation to the participants of the class action. Combined with the cooperation of the defendants, the overall value far exceeds the various risks involved in continuing the litigation. Currently, the case is still ongoing, and its future direction remains pending court rulings and the strategic interplay of the parties involved.

https://news.chemnet.com/news-6274.html

Source

      

by Tyler Durden

Tuesday, Jun 09, 2026 – 10:11 AM

With the Spring selling season in tatters, existing home sales were expected to rebound in May very modestly (+1.1% MoM) off recent record lows, but instead they outperformed, rising at 3.2% MoM (and April’s 0.2% MoM rise was revised higher to a +0.7% MoM rise). That lifted existing home sales up 3.22% YoY – the strongest since September 2025…

Source: Bloomberg

That beat lifted existing home sales SAAR to its highest level of the year (but not exactly signaling a trend)…

Source: Bloomberg

“More Americans are on the move, with home sales rising to the highest level since December,” Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in a statement.

“This is great news for the housing market and the economy.”

Sellers are giving up some ground on price and “meeting buyers where they are,” Realtor.com said.

In May, the median sales price of an existing home climbed 1.3% from a year ago to $429,300, NAR data show.

Meantime, inventory rose slightly from a year ago to 1.55 million, the highest since July and representing 4.5 months of supply at the current sales pace.

Sales rose in the South, Northeast and Midwest from a month earlier, while they were unchanged in the West. In the Midwest, transactions reached 1 million, the highest pace since April 2023.

First-time buyers accounted for 35% of sales, compared with 33% a month earlier and 30% a year ago.

Finally, it appears home sales are catching up to the prior decline in mortgage rates (but we note that rates have been rising since)…

Source: Bloomberg

“Improving affordability is helping drive this momentum,” Yun said.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-existing-home-sales-unexpectedly-jumped-may-inventories-surge

Source