As a company with international operations, the Covestro Group is exposed to numerous legal risks, particularly in the areas of product liability, competition and antitrust law, patent disputes, tax law, environmental law, and compliance issues such as corruption and export control. The outcome of any current or future proceedings cannot be predicted. It is therefore possible that legal judgments or regulatory decisions or future settlements could give rise to expenses that are not covered, or not fully covered, by insurers’ compensation payments and could significantly affect the earnings of the Covestro Group.
Legal proceedings currently considered to involve material risks are outlined below. The legal proceedings referred to do not necessarily represent an exhaustive list:
Carbon monoxide pipeline from Dormagen to Krefeld-Uerdingen
The carbon monoxide pipeline is intended to connect the chemical production sites at Dormagen and Krefeld-Uerdingen and complement the network already existing between Dormagen and Leverkusen. The aim is to ensure a safe and reliable supply of carbon monoxide to and across all sites. Although the pipeline was almost completed by the end of year 2009, it cannot currently be put into operation because of ongoing court proceedings. Following confirmation by the Düsseldorf Administrative Court in year 2011 that there were no grounds to challenge the material aspects of the planning permission decision, in particular the safety of the materials used and the legal conformity of the relevant pipeline act (Rohrleitungsgesetz), the plaintiffs and the regional government against which legal proceedings had been instituted lodged appeals before the Higher Administrative Court in Münster. In year 2014, the Münster Higher Administrative Court raised no objections in principle to the safety and routing of the pipeline, but questioned the constitutionality of the pipeline act which forms the legal basis for the project. On December 21, 2016, the German Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the corresponding constitutionality question referred to it by Münster Higher Administrative Court as inadmissible and confirmed the legal opinion of the Covestro Group. Subsequently, Münster Higher Administrative Court again considered the facts of the appeal and, in a decision handed down on August 31, 2020, dismissed the actions against the planning permission decision. The Higher Administrative Court did not permit an appeal against its decision. The plaintiffs can now file a complaint against the denial of leave to appeal with the Federal Administrative Court.
Civil class action lawsuits over diisocyanates (in the United States)
On July 9, 2018, Covestro LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (United States) – as one of numerous other defendants – was served the first of now 12 class action lawsuits initiated by various U.S. Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (MDI) and Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) customers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have violated various provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act since January 1, 2015, by acting in coordination to limit production capacities of MDI and TDI and, at the same time, raising prices for these products in the market. On October 3, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled that all class action lawsuits in pretrial proceedings would be centralized in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Based in essence on the same assertions and the violations of federal consumer protection and antitrust laws allegedly resulting from them, the attorney general of the state of Mississippi filed a separate civil complaint against Covestro LLC and numerous other defendants on behalf of the state and its citizens in September 2019. In November 2020, the parties suspended these lawsuits without prejudice for a period of two years. Covestro currently considers these claims without merit and will therefore use all legal means to defend itself against these allegations – also in light of the official conclusion in November 2018 of the six-month investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into possible anticompetitive practices in relation to MDI.