Breaking News! Dow Claims Over €6 Billion!

On May 12, Clariant announced that the company received a lawsuit from Dow Europe against four companies, including Clariant, for damages in a lawsuit filed at the Munich court in Germany on May 9, 2025.

The lawsuit claims that Clariant owes approximately €767 million for violating the competition laws in the ethylene procurement market. Clariant firmly denies the allegations and will defend its position in the lawsuit. Dow Europe is not Clariant's ethylene supplier, and Clariant has provided conclusive economic evidence showing that their actions have had no impact on the market.

It is understood that Clariant had been sanctioned by the European Commission in July 2020 for violating the competition laws of the ethylene procurement market.

Multiple Claims from Several Companies

Since 2023, in addition to Dow, Clariant has received lawsuits from TotalEnergies, BASF, and Shell, with a total claimed amount reaching €3.792 billion:

• February 25, 2025: TotalEnergies filed a lawsuit in the Amsterdam court against four companies, including Clariant, claiming damages of approximately €625 million.
• January 9, 2025: BASF filed a lawsuit against four companies, including Clariant, in the Munich court, claiming damages of €1 billion.
• October 18, 2023: Shell filed a lawsuit in the Amsterdam court against four companies, including Clariant, claiming damages of €1 billion.

The reason for these claims is that the four companies, including Clariant, allegedly violated the competition laws of the ethylene procurement market and breached EU antitrust rules during ethylene procurement. These illegal actions distorted the pricing of ethylene and certain ethylene derivatives, harming the plaintiffs' interests.

However, Clariant's official website firmly denies these allegations and will defend its position in the lawsuits. Clariant has also provided conclusive economic evidence to prove that the actions of all parties involved have not affected the market.

The Course of Events

The infringement occurred between December 26, 2011, and March 29, 2017, including the exchange of sensitive commercial and pricing information, as well as the manipulation of price elements related to ethylene procurement. The infringement spanned EU member states, including Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, violating Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The four companies penalized include Clariant International Ltd. and Clariant AG. The former unreservedly acknowledged its direct involvement in the infringement during the relevant period, while the latter acknowledged its "joint and several liability" as the parent company of Clariant International Ltd.

It is understood that in 2020, the European Commission imposed a total fine of €260 million on Clariant, Orbia, and Celanese (Orbia: €22.37 million, Clariant: €156 million, Celanese: €82.3 million), for conspiring to depress ethylene procurement prices, violating EU antitrust rules. The European Commission stated at the time that Westlake Chemical also participated in the procurement alliance but was exempt from the fine as it disclosed these activities to the Commission.

However, Clariant has repeatedly appealed since 2020. According to a court ruling disclosed in October 2023, the court upheld the European Commission’s decision and ordered Clariant to bear its own legal costs as well as 90% of the European Commission’s legal costs.

On March 7, 2024, the General Court of the European Union issued a correction order to amend a clear error in the judgment from October 18, 2023. Specifically:

The judgment disclosed in October 2023 stated the following:

“In this case, in paragraphs 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement related to ethylene constituted a buying cartel and not all participants appeared in the same downstream market, the Commission considered that calculating the basic fine based on sales value, rather than based on the sales of products in the downstream market, was appropriate.”

In March 2024, the court corrected the above interpretation:

“In this case, in paragraphs 116 to 118 of the contested decision, the Commission found that, given that the infringement related to ethylene constituted a buying cartel, and not all participants appeared in the same downstream market, the Commission considered that calculating the basic fine based on purchasing value, rather than based on the sales of products in the downstream market, was appropriate.”

This change from "sales value" to "purchasing value" indicates that, in calculating the fine basis, the European Commission believed that for a procurement cartel, the purchasing value should be used, not the sales value, since not all participants were active in the same downstream market.

In summary, although Clariant has appealed multiple times, the General Court of the European Union ultimately upheld the European Commission’s decision and made the necessary correction to the wording of the judgment.