Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Department of Justice seeks to intervene in PVC pipe price-fixing case, (Oct 10, 2025)

By Christopher M. Longo, J.D.

The Justice Department seeks to protect the “secrecy and confidentiality” of a grand jury probe investigating allegations of PVC pipe price fixing.

The Department of Justice has filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in a class-action suit filed in the Northern District of Illinois by PVC pipe purchasers alleging that several PVC pipe manufacturers exploited the COVID-19 supply chain disruptions by fixing prices and overcharging customers. The DOJ seeks to pause certain discovery activities for six months to safeguard a federal grand jury’s investigation in the Northern District of California addressing alleged price-fixing and bid-rigging activities by manufacturers of PVC pipes. The DOJ argues that allowing full discovery to proceed could compromise the secrecy and effectiveness of its criminal investigation. The motion is unopposed by the parties involved in the civil case (In Re PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2025)).

Background. The PVC pipe purchasers alleged that several PVC pipe manufacturers conspired to fix prices and overcharge customers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges that the PVC pipe manufacturers, called converters, control approximately 90% of the market for PVC municipal water pipe, and approximately 95% of the market for PVC electrical conduit in the United States. The purchasers allege that the manufacturers exploited COVID-19 supply chain disruptions to implement their price-fixing scheme, facilitated by OPIS, a commodity pricing service that allegedly served as a conduit for information exchange among the PVC pipe manufacturers.

According to the purchasers, OPIS provided a platform for the manufacturers to discuss pricing strategies and gain access to standardized pricing data, enabling them to charge inflated prices to their customers. The manufacturers allegedly raised prices for PVC municipal water pipes and electrical conduit pipe by approximately 500% during the pandemic, significantly exceeding historical pricing levels.

DOJ's motion to intervene. The Justice Department argues in its motion to intervene that a federal grand jury “in the Northern District of California is currently investigating allegations of price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation among manufacturers of PVC pipe and others….” The DOJ argues that its motion is timely, and that it has a “direct, significant, and legally protectable interest, both in its mission to criminally enforce the Sherman Act—one of the statutes at issue in this litigation—and in ensuring the integrity of the grand jury’s investigation into some of the same conduct at issue….” The DOJ also argues that the government cannot protect its interest “in maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the grand jury’s ongoing parallel investigation” without intervening, and that no other party in the case can “adequately represent the government’s interests.”

The Justice Department also argues that if its motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) is denied, it should be allowed to intervene under Rule 24(b)(1)(B), which allows intervention where the party “has a claim or defense that [it] shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”

Stay of discovery. In addition to seeking intervention, the DOJ requests a six-month stay of specific discovery activities, including depositions and document production related to the parties, their employees, and third parties. The DOJ does not seek to halt all discovery but specifically targets categories that could overlap with its criminal investigation. The motion emphasizes the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the grand jury proceedings. The DOJ argues that its request for a stay is supported by several factors, including the “substantial overlap between the civil and criminal matters,” the public interest in “effective criminal law enforcement,” judicial economy, and the potential burden on defendants if forced to defend both cases simultaneously.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-07639.

Attorneys: Anthony J. Stauber (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) for George Bavolak. Britt Marie Miller (Mayer Brown LLP) for Atkore, Inc.

Companies: Atkore, Inc.

News: Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews CaliforniaNews