Isocyanate price-fixing case in Pennsylvania: foreign companies dismissed

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that two foreign parent companies cannot be sued in the ongoing antitrust litigation accusing several chemical firms of conspiring to manipulate prices of key diisocyanates used in polyurethane production. The opinion was unsealed on January 29, 2026, in the multidistrict case In re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

US District Judge W. Scott Hardy dismissed claims against Covestro AG of Germany and Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd. of China, concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction over the foreign parent entities because they do not have sufficient minimum contacts to be “at home” in the United States or to reasonably expect to face litigation here. The judge’s order finds that neither company manufactures or sells MDI or TDI in the US, and therefore personal jurisdiction does not properly attach.

The claims against the foreign parents have been dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled in this court. The litigation continues, however, against their domestic subsidiaries — Covestro LLC and Wanhua Chemical America — along with other defendants including BASF, Dow and Huntsman.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that chemical producers conspired to restrict supply of MDI and TDI following a period of low prices in 2014–2015, using plant closures and limited output to drive up costs for manufacturers of polyurethane plastics. Diisocyanates are essential intermediates in production of polyurethanes used in foams, coatings, adhesives and elastomers, and the class action is brought on behalf of industrial purchasers such as Rhino Linings and Elliott Co. of Indianapolis.

The case has been ongoing since pretrial proceedings in 2020, when a prior judge denied an initial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; subsequent discovery allowed the renewed motions on jurisdiction that led to this ruling. Arguments over the extent of defendants’ contacts with US markets and whether actions could be “expressly aimed” at the United States were central to the decision.

Following the court’s decision, counsel for Wanhua emphasized their satisfaction with the outcome and signalled further procedural steps will follow. Litigation continues against remaining defendants, with summary judgment briefing anticipated next.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash