 A Leading Supplier to the Specialty Chemical Industry Antitrust Update
2026-06-10 19:01 UTC by David PattenMDI/TDI antitrust lawsuit sees new progress as BASF and Covestro reach settlements
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 
Content mobilized by FeedBlitz RSS Services, the premium FeedBurner alternative. | 
