Per the Opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in In Re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, 2:18-mc-01001 (W.D. Pa.), the court determined that “Plaintiffs’ (class action complaint) avers coordinated parallel conduct, price increases, plant closures and supply disruptions, defendants’ communication and presence at industry meetings prior to pricing announcements, actions potentially inconsistent with competitive market behavior, and a highly concentrated relevant market that was susceptible to price fixing . . . .” “Additionally, plaintiffs’ CAC sufficiently avers a motive, that defendants acted against their interests, and evidence implying traditional conspiracy.”
The article can be seen here: BASF, Dow Can’t Escape Polyurethane Price-Fixing MDL – Law360
The Opinion can be seen here: Diisocyantes – Order on MTD
