E President Nixon Promise of veto
TRADE:
Veto for Mills Bill President Nixon put it on the line. Send him a trade bill loaded with quota restrictions and he "would certainly veto it." Mr. Nixon may be bluffing, but if he follows through with a veto, then trade legislation this year may be dead even before the House Ways and Means Committee gives birth to the measure. Congressional action to override a veto on trade late in an election year is highly unlikely. Mr. Nixon told an unscheduled news conference last week that unless quota provisions in the trade bill are limited to textiles—which the Administration "reluctantly" supports—he "would not be able to sign it because that would set off a trade war which would have . . . repercussions"—a loss of exports and hence jobs, and it would be highly inflationary. Chances are slim indeed, however, that the committee will heed the President's warning and will dismantle tentatively approved provisions setting quotas on shoes and on other commodities via a trigger mechanism or will drop an amendment that would make statutory the quota system for oil imports. A final vote on the bill's provisions is expected by midweek. Whether the oil import quota provision stays or goes doesn't appear to upset the Petrochem (nonintegrated) or Chemco (primarily integrated) groups of petrochemical producers. Morse G. Dial, Jr., chairman of the eight-member Chemco group, comments that while he has not seen the actual language of the committee's proposal, "we understand that it would not prevent the President from taking the action necessary to provide relief to the petrochemical in8 C&EN JULY 27, 1970
THE CHEMICAL WORLD THIS WEEK
dustry from the provisions of the mandatoiy oil import program." David S. Bruce, chairman of the 19member Petrochem group, comments that the "fact that the committee is considering legislation of the kind it is considering should not stand in the way of the Administration's acting promptly on the proposal that has been presented by the petrochemical industry to the Administration." Earlier this year a majority of the President's oil import task force members recommended the quota system be scuttled in favor of tariffs. A minority wanted the quota system kept intact. The Cabinet-level task force was in complete agreement, however, that the petrochemical industry should have free access to foreign feedstocks. But Mr. Nixon waffled: He didn't switch to tariffs or make a firm commitment to quotas or change the status of petrochemical feedstocks under the oil import quota program. Instead, he called for further study of the matter and set up an Oil Policy Committee (OPC) in the Office of Emergency Preparedness.
The judgment also requires sale of Geigy's pharmaceutical patents, certain Geigy trademarks, and all Geigy's interests in materials and information supplied to FDA relating to pharmaceutical dings. The defendants would for five years supply to the purchaser the active ingredients for these pharmaceuticals, extend an option to buy the Geigy plant at Cranston, R.I., and extend certain comanufacturing rights at the Geigy pharmaceutical formulation plant at Suffem, N.Y. On agrochemical products, the judgment requires Ciba to grant to an eligible purchaser unrestricted licenses under certain patents, manufacturing know-how, and access to materials and
MERGERS:
U.S. vs. Ciba/Geigy The Justice Department 10 days ago filed an antitrust suit and a consent judgment against Ciba Corp., Summit, N.J., Geigy Chemical Corp., Ardsley, N.Y., and Ciba, Ltd., and J. R. Geigy, S.A., both of Basel, Switzerland. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charged that the proposed merger of the two Swiss chemical companies (C&EN, July 20, page 29) would substantially lessen competition between their U.S. subsidiaries. The judgment—which may become final in 30 days—requires the firms to sell competing lines in their U.S. dyes, optical brightening agents, pharmaceutical, and their agrochemical businesses. Under the consent order, the defendants would establish a new corporation and transfer to it Ciba's dyes and optical brightening agents business, including personnel, inventories, offices, accounts, licenses under certain patents, and exclusive right to certain trademarks, know-how, and technical assistance in construction of a dye plant. The defendants would supply the new company for periods of 10 and five years, respectively, its requirements of unpatented and patented dyes sold by Ciba-Geigy in the U.S. The order requires that Ciba-Geigy sell the new company within two years.
2 *s o
Attorney General John Mitchell Set of rules for Ciba/Geigy merger
information filed by Ciba with FDA and the Department of Agriculture. The defendants would enter into contracts with the purchaser of the agrochemical assets to furnish chemicals for formulation of agricultural products, to furnish customer lists and sales records, and make personnel available for employment. The suit cites 1968 sales and market shares for the U.S. subsidiaries of the Swiss companies in areas where merger would weaken competition. In 1968, Ciba had U.S. sales of $143 million, about 23% of worldwide sales for Ciba, Ltd. Geigy had U.S. sales of $280 million, about 45% of total sales. Dyes' market shares for Ciba and Geigy were 7.7% and 10.3%, respectively, in a U.S. market of $297 million. Geigy accounted for about 50%- of U.S. sales of optical brightening agents to the laundry products industry; Ciba had about 6%. Geigy's market share in oral diuretics was 7.7%; Ciba's was 5.8%.
