DOJ Subpoenas Four Containerboard Producers in Pricing Probe

By Tom Whitfield

The U.S. Department of Justice issued late-September subpoenas to International Paper, Packaging Corporation of America, Smurfit Westrock and Cascades over pricing and sales of containerboard in the United States. The requests stem from a grand jury investigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

International Paper, Packaging Corporation of America and Smurfit Westrock disclosed the subpoenas in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Cascades separately confirmed receiving a subpoena from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. Georgia-Pacific declined comment, while Pratt Industries and Greif did not respond to requests for comment.

The criminal inquiry is separate from a civil lawsuit filed in July 2025 that alleges containerboard producers created a cartel, engaged in price collusion and raised profits at customers’ expense. Alexander Wentworth-Ping, an attorney at Schlam Stone & Dolan and a former federal prosecutor, said the cases overlap in certain ways and can affect one another.

He reviewed both matters but is not involved in either. Hurtado, an associate at Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, also is not involved in the criminal or civil containerboard cases.

What prompted the DOJ investigation?

Wentworth-Ping said grand jury proceedings remain confidential and kept under seal. Hurtado said most companies in question are publicly traded, which generally requires SEC disclosure of government proceedings that a reasonable shareholder would consider material.

Hurtado placed the DOJ subpoena above that routine threshold. “A subpoena in a routine civil case typically doesn’t rise to that level, but a subpoena from the DOJ would be treated much more seriously because it signals that there is an active government investigation, which could affect the entire industry,” Hurtado said via email.

Hurtado said SEC rules require enough detail so investors can understand who is involved, where the case sits, its subject, what authorities seek and any foreseeable financial impact. Public companies usually disclose charges or an investigation’s end, but not necessarily document production or depositions; Hurtado said they keep disclosures narrow to avoid legal strategy unless disclosure serves their interest.

Wentworth-Ping said a civil complaint can draw Antitrust Division attention, as appears to be the case here. He said the subpoena recipients appear to align with the civil defendants, while formal complaints or press coverage can also trigger a review.

Wentworth-Ping said prosecutors evaluated the complaint under a criminal antitrust theory, including whether conduct could be per se unlawful. He said: “The grand jury process means they’re looking at it. It doesn’t mean there’s an accusation.”

Wentworth-Ping said document subpoenas often follow information gathering from third parties. He said the sealed record prevents certainty, but DOJ likely has investigated for some time and holds some documents. In practical terms, the request resembles a late-stage civil discovery document demand, with prior information narrowing what the recipient must produce.

No charges have been filed, although Wentworth-Ping said charges could follow. He also said the investigation could close without any charges.

How does the criminal inquiry affect the civil case?

In September, Judge Mary M. Rowland denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the civil lawsuit. She found enough evidence of a potential conspiracy to warrant further exploration of the claims, and Wentworth-Ping said the ruling plus DOJ involvement placed the allegations beyond the frivolous category.

Both cases sit in the Northern District of Illinois, where DOJ maintains a strong Antitrust Division presence. New York City and Los Angeles also host sizable DOJ teams, but Wentworth-Ping said selecting Chicago suggests the criminal case likely took its cue from the civil lawsuit.

Even if DOJ files no charges, its inquiry increases the defendants’ exposure in the civil case, Wentworth-Ping said. He said a finding of guilt in a criminal case would become significant evidence for civil plaintiffs.

If company executives invoke their Fifth Amendment rights during the DOJ investigation, Wentworth-Ping said the choice can impair their civil defense. Juries may draw an adverse inference, although the law does not permit prejudice solely because someone invokes the right.

Wentworth-Ping said parallel cases often receive a stay during civil discovery to protect the grand jury investigation. Defendants may have to produce documents without testifying under oath until DOJ concludes its work. He said a DOJ-backed stay would delay, rather than eliminate, the civil lawsuit.

What happens next?

Wentworth-Ping expects document collection to take three to five months at minimum from the subpoena dates. The full investigation could take more than a year, and document subpoenas often lead to requests that company representatives testify under oath before a grand jury.

He said any criminal charges would arrive at least a year after the subpoenas, if DOJ brings them at all. Companies and individuals could settle with DOJ before or after charges.

Wentworth-Ping said DOJ’s recent leniency program rewards a first defendant that substantially cooperates with an antitrust investigation. Under some conditions, that defendant could reduce civil exposure. Named defendants often face joint and several liability, though the first substantial DOJ cooperator may not, creating an incentive to cooperate.

The next markers are completion of document production, any grand-jury testimony and a DOJ decision to charge or close the inquiry. Until DOJ files charges, the criminal process has produced no public accusation against the producers.