Haley Paint Co. v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co., 804 F. Supp. 2d 419

Plaintiffs Haley Paint Company and Isaac Industries allege a Sherman Act §1 conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize titanium dioxide prices in the United States from 2002 to the present.
Defendants Dupont, Huntsman, Kronos, and Millennium are global market leaders controlling about 70% of titanium dioxide capacity.
Titanium dioxide is a widely used, inelastic pigment with high barriers to entry for new production plants.
Plaintiffs contend there were industry meetings, conferences, dinners, and communications through consultants and customers facilitating an unlawful price-fixing agreement.
Prices increased during the Class Period despite declining demand and lower production costs, including a series of announced price increases and energy surcharges in 2008.
The court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, applying Twombly/Iqbal standards and evaluating the complaint as a whole for plausibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAC plausibly pleads a Sherman Act §1 conspiracy	Plaintiffs allege parallel price increases and industry meetings indicate agreement.	Defendants contend allegations fail to show an agreement or plausible conspiracy at Twombly/Iqbal standard.	Denied; court finds plausible §1 claim allowing discovery.
Whether the timing of price increases supports plausibility	Price hikes occurred amid declining demand and reduced costs, suggesting collusion.	Plaintiffs’ interpretation of market signals as collusion is not compelled.	Denied; totality of circumstances supports plausibility under Twombly.
Whether the complaint’s factual mix suffices under Twombly/Iqbal	Plus factors and corroborating industry conduct render the claim plausible.	Parallel conduct could be independent; allegations do not rule out pro-competitive explanations.	Denied; court concludes a plausible claim exists and discovery is warranted.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible grounds to infer conspiracy)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings; not mere conclusory statements)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir.1999) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard governs dismissal)
In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 630 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.2010) (parallel conduct may signal price fixing; not alone proof)
Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1962) (evaluate §1 claims by viewing the pleadings as a whole)
In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 587 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C.2008) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach to plausibility)
In re Plasma-Derivative Protein Therapies Antitrust Litig., 764 F. Supp. 2d 991 (N.D. Ill.2011) (recognizes private enforcement goals and pleading constraints)