August 6, 2026

Third Settlement

Wanhua’s US subsidiary reaches MDI/TDI lawsuit settlement for $7.75 million

2026-08-06 08:50:21Source:ChemNet中文

Wanhua’s US Subsidiary Files Settlement Application, Marking the Third Settlement in the Case

On July 31, 2026, a judicial document submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disclosed that Wanhua Chemical America Co., LTD. has reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the diisocyanate (MDI/TDI) antitrust class action, with a settlement amount of US$7.75 million, equivalent to approximately RMB 52.3 million.

The timeline indicates that the parties finalized a principled settlement framework on June 3, 2026, and simultaneously signed confidentiality agreements as the basis for the settlement; the full settlement text was formally signed on July 9; and on July 31, documents were formally submitted to the court to apply for judicial approval of the settlement plan. This is also the third settlement agreement reached in this diisocyanate antitrust case, which has lasted for many years.

First Two Settlements Concluded, Court Grants Preliminary Approval

Prior to the settlement by Wanhua’s US subsidiary, two corporate settlements had already been completed in this case.

On May 4, 2026, BASF took the lead in reaching the first settlement in this case, paying a settlement amount of US$3 million to the plaintiffs, breaking the ice in the case. Following closely, on May 8, Covestro‘s US subsidiary, Covestro LLC, also reached a settlement with the plaintiffs, with a settlement amount of US$7 million.

On July 23, 2026, both settlement agreements from BASF and Covestro’s US subsidiary received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The court scheduled the final approval hearing for December 7, 2026; the two settlement agreements can only officially take effect and be implemented after the hearing is completed.

Origin of the Case: Downstream Buyers Sued Chemical Companies in 2018 for Alleged Price Fixing Conspiracy

The entire lawsuit originated in June 2018, when downstream buyers of MDI and TDI initiated a class action, listing several global chemical manufacturers such as BASF, Dow Chemical, and Huntsman as defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that multiple companies artificially tightened supply by actively limiting production and colluded to raise market prices for MDI and TDI; they utilized the market structure of highly concentrated supply and scarcity of substitute products to implement price collusion.

The MDI and TDI involved are core raw materials for polyurethanes and are widely used in fields such as home furnishings, construction materials, automobiles, and insulation materials. Regarding the plaintiffs’ allegations, all implicated companies denied them. The companies argued that the lawsuit was initiated following relevant investigation reports by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the Department of Justice’s investigation ultimately did not bring any charges.

In March 2020, District Judge Donetta Ambrose denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, ruling that the clues submitted by the plaintiffs were supported by evidence and the case should proceed to trial. The judge cited multiple clues, including records of simultaneous price increases in industry products, planned plant shutdowns, supply disruptions, and communications between companies before price adjustments, as well as materials related to industry conferences. In the same ruling, the judge denied motions by BASF, Covestro, Mitsui Chemicals, MCNS, and Wanhua Chemical to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, and the case continued to proceed through the litigation process.

Major Ruling on Jurisdiction: Lawsuits Against Overseas Parent Companies Terminated, US Subsidiaries Continue to Defend

In 2022, the presiding judge in this case was changed, and a specialized factual investigation on jurisdiction was launched. Covestro and Wanhua Chemical’s parent companies again submitted motions to dismiss, arguing that the U.S. courts did not have judicial jurisdiction over the overseas parent companies.

In January 2026, Judge W. Scott Hardy made a key ruling, approving the two companies’ motions to dismiss. The ruling clarified that U.S. courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over China’s Wanhua Chemical and Germany’s Covestro, the two overseas parent companies. The plaintiffs’ claims against the two parent company entities were completely terminated, and they cannot sue the parent companies on this ground again. The ruling emphasized that the independent status of legal entities should be respected, and a simple equity relationship between a parent and subsidiary is insufficient to bring an overseas parent company under U.S. judicial jurisdiction.

This ruling only targets overseas parent companies; Covestro’s US subsidiary, Covestro LLC, remains a defendant in this case, and its status in the lawsuit is unaffected by this jurisdiction ruling; the entity reaching the settlement this time is also Wanhua Chemical’s US subsidiary, not the Wanhua Chemical parent company entity.

Future Outlook: Awaiting Court Approval for Settlement, Remaining Defendants to Continue Litigation

As of now, the US$7.75 million settlement by Wanhua’s US subsidiary is still pending court approval, and whether it takes effect depends on the results of judicial review. The settlements by BASF and Covestro’s US subsidiary await final confirmation following the hearing on December 7.

Following these three settlements, the remaining defendants, such as Dow Chemical and Huntsman, have not yet reached settlements, and the plaintiffs will continue to advance antitrust claim procedures against the remaining defendants. The progress of the settlements in this case will also serve as a reference sample for global MDI/TDI industry trade and for overseas companies responding to U.S. antitrust class actions.

https://news.chemnet.com/news-8394.html

June 22, 2026

The Loneliness of Remote Work

We Liked Remote Work. Then We Looked at the Data.

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.”

June 17, 2026

A Little Positivity Never Hurt Anyone!

How The World Added Decades To Life Expectancy

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

June 10, 2026

Existing Home Sales Jump in May

US Existing Home Sales Unexpectedly Jumped In May, Inventories Surge

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

June 2, 2026

PFA Spring Meeting

Polyurethane Foam Association Spring Meeting Attracts Record
Attendance, Tackles Key Industry Issues

Mattress Recycling Council Wins Dr. Herman T. Stone Technical Excellence Award; Friedman
Inducted Into Hall of Fame; Skorpenske Recognized With Lifetime Achievement Award

PITTSBURGH (June 1, 2026)—Members and guests of The Polyurethane Foam Association had
plenty to discuss at the group’s annual Spring meeting, as the flexible foam industry faces supply
chain challenges, new potential regulation, and the promise of new technologies.

More than 170 industry professionals (a modern-era record attendance), including C-suite
executives, researchers, EHS specialists, marketers, and technologists came to the Omni William
Penn in late May for networking and presentations on foam sustainability, market trends, and the
regulatory environment.

“PFA was created 46 years ago to help
the industry address challenges that
threatened the existence of the flexible
polyurethane foam industry,” said Cam
McLaughlin of Elite Comfort Solutions
and current PFA President. “Today, we
still confront serious and changing
threats. This Association provides its
members with a platform to educate
themselves and take sensible action.”

During the conference’s Industry Issues Session, speakers covered current supply chain issues
created by the Strait of Hormuz blockade and chemical plant shutdowns. Representatives from foam
end-user industries, including automotive, business furniture, and bedding discussed conditions in
those market segments. Other speakers provided updates on isocyanate regulations and research,
plus reports on sustainability advances.

The Thursday afternoon Technical Program included presentations on AI-enabled R&D, foam
laydown technologies, mattress recycling byproducts, and bringing scientific rigor to mattress
comfort.

Michael Gallagher (second from left) and Karl Heider (second from
right) of the Mattress Recycling Council were winners of the Dr.
Herman Stone Technical Excellence Award at PFA’s conference in
Pittsburgh. Also pictured are Russ Batson, Executive Director of PFA
(left), and Cam McLaughlin of Elite Comfort Solutions, current PFA
President (right).

Following PFA’s Technical Program, Michael Gallagher and Karl Heider of the Mattress Recycling
Council were named winners of the Dr. Herman Stone Technical Excellence Award. The award is
voted on by attendees present for the Technical Program. The award is named for Dr. Herman T.
Stone, who served as PFA’s first Technical Director. In 2007, Dr. Stone was inducted into the
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Hall of Fame. It was the second time Gallagher was honored with the
award.

Industry Veterans Honored With Hall of Fame, Lifetime Achievement Award
Other foam professionals were also recognized for their contributions to
the industry. Sol Friedman of Future Foam, Inc. was inducted into the
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Hall of Fame. Friedman was one of the
founding executives of Future Foam during the late 1950s, and was
instrumental in helping flexible polyurethane foam get accepted by
customers to replace existing cushioning materials. He also helped
oversee Future Foam’s growth into one of the nation’s largest foam
producers.

Friedman died in late April. His son, Steve, spoke on his behalf in
Pittsburgh, recalling how his father had been a minor league baseball
player (once pitching against the legendary Bob Gibson) before finishing
college and entering the foam industry.

In addition, Richard Skorpenske, recently retired from Covestro, was
recognized with PFA’s Lifetime Achievement Award. Skorpenske has a
four-decade long career in the foam industry as a researcher and
specialist in sustainability. He is a contributor to a still-used textbook on
flexible foam, developed numerous patented technologies, and has long contributed time to
committees within PFA, the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry of the American Chemistry
Council, the International Sleep Products Association, and Cribs for
Kids, an organization that provides infant beds to underserved families.
“A key purpose of the Hall of Fame is to archive the stories of industry
founders, so that future generations can understand and learn from
them,” said McLaughlin. “Sol Friedman was a true pioneer.”

“And Richard Skorpenske’s insights and guidance for flexible
polyurethane foam has been invaluable for years, and will still be shaping
our business for decades to come.”

The Polyurethane Foam Association is a trade association founded in 1980 to
help educate regulators, users, allied industries, and others about flexible
polyurethane foam. PFA provides facts on environmental, health and safety
issues and technical information on the performance of flexible polyurethane
foam (FPF) in consumer and industrial products. FPF is used as a key
comfort component in most upholstered furniture and mattress products, along with automotive seating,

carpet cushion, packaging, and numerous other applications.

To learn more, visit www.pfa.org.