Celanese, Clariant and co-defendants secure victory over Shell and Repsol in ethylene damages litigation in the Netherlands

Compass Lexecon teams assisted Celanese and Clariant in follow-on damages proceedings brought by Shell Chemicals Europe B.V. (SCE) and Repsol before the Amsterdam District Court. Following an extensive examination of the economic evidence, the Court dismissed both claims in their entirety.

Situation

Shell and Repsol filed lawsuits following the 2020 European Commission decision concerning the exchange of information between ethylene purchasers about negotiations over the Monthly Contract Price (‘MCP’) in Northwest Europe.

Shell claimed more than EUR 1 billion in damages. Repsol, represented by claims vehicle Stichting Ethylene Claims, sought a declaration of liability, with damages to be determined in subsequent proceedings.

Our role

Separate Compass Lexecon teams advise Celanese and Clariant, defendants in this matter. The teams submitted a rebuttal report addressing Shell’s experts’ economic evidence and expert reports assessing the effects of the alleged undercharge arising from the information exchange.

Dr. Jorge Padilla and Bernardo Sarmento acted as expert witnesses for Celanese. Thilo Klein and Dr. Urs Haegler acted as expert witnesses for Clariant. Dr. Jorge Padilla provided oral testimony at a hearing in the Shell proceedings before the Amsterdam District Court.

Outcome

In its judgement issued on 29 July 2026, the Amsterdam District Court dismissed both Shell’s and Repsol’s claims in their entirety.

Following an extensive examination of the competing economic evidence brought forward by experts advising Shell and the defendants, the Court rejected Shell’s theory of harm and quantification of damages. The Court found that the Asian ethylene markets were not sufficiently comparable to the Northwest European ethylene market for the purpose of the difference-in-differences econometric analysis presented by Shell’s economic experts and that its results were implausible. The Court expressly considered evidence submitted in Compass Lexecon’s reports in reaching this conclusion.

In the Repsol proceedings, the Court found that Repsol did not present a clear theory of harm by which the MCP could have been manipulated through information exchange among the defendants. The Court concluded that “the possibility of damage as a result of the infringement is not plausible” (Repsol Judgment, para 8.23, English translation).[1]

The teams

The Compass Lexecon team advising Celanese is led by Dr. Jorge Padilla and Bernardo Sarmento, and includes Chi Trieu, Florian Knauth, Rodrigo Barajas, Roberta Montebello, and Catarina Pintassilgo.

They work closely with Celanese’s external counsel at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, including Jolling de Pree, Marieke Bredenoord-Spoek, Francesco Bassi, Roanne Groothengel, Astrid Meijerink, Matthijs de Groot, and Douwe de Lange.

The Compass Lexecon team advising Clariant is led by Thilo Klein and Urs Haegler, including Peter Bönisch, Istvan Barati, Matthias von Loewenich, Joshua Phoon, Rahel Krauskopf, Katharina Momsen, and Shawn Teo.

This team assists Clariant’s external counsel Freshfields, including Mijke Sinninghe Damsté, Alexander Schurink, Eleanora Di Pangrazio, Gaibar Hasami, and Tim van Helfteren.

References