Diisocyanates
Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation consolidates claims that manufacturers of diisocyanate chemicals — industrial inputs used to produce polyurethane foam and related materials — coordinated pricing sold to purchasers across the chemical supply chain. Centralized in the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2018, the docket carries 12 pending actions after roughly seven years, placing it in a comparatively mature phase relative to more recently centralized antitrust matters.
What drives resolution risk in what remains is largely claim-specific at this stage: the underlying conspiracy theory and market definition for diisocyanate chemicals have had years to develop through discovery and, for much of the original claim population, resolution. The narrower set of actions still pending likely reflects claims that opted out of earlier settlement structures or that raise issues — such as which specific chemical products or time periods fall within the conspiracy — that required individualized resolution rather than classwide treatment.
For anyone tracking how an industrial-chemical price-fixing MDL of moderate scale resolves over roughly a decade, Diisocyanates is a representative example: a docket that developed a substantial settlement history over several years while retaining a smaller population of claims requiring individualized attention. Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks this phase distinction — distinguishing a docket's original scale from its current remaining population — across every active MDL, since the two can diverge significantly as a matter matures.
Plaintiffs allege manufacturers of diisocyanate chemicals, used as key inputs in polyurethane foam and related materials, coordinated pricing sold to purchasers across the chemical manufacturing supply chain.
Much of the original claim population has likely worked through class certification and settlement over the docket's history, leaving a narrower set of remaining claims — often opt-outs or claims raising more individualized issues.
A bellwether tests how a representative claim performs before a broader group of similar claims resolves. In a docket with a narrower remaining population, an early bellwether or dispositive ruling can meaningfully shape how the rest are valued.
It proceeds through whatever discovery and dispositive motion practice remains specific to that claim, given that the docket's core conspiracy and market-definition questions were largely developed and resolved for the bulk of the plaintiff population years earlier.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.