United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n

Decision Date12 August 1949
Docket NumberCiv. No. 24-464.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES ALKALI EXPORT ASS'N, Inc. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

John F. X. McGohey, United States Attorney, New York City, for plaintiff (J. Francis Hayden, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Francis E. Dugan, Special Attorney, Antitrust Division, New York City, Burton R. Thorman, Special Attorney, Washington, D. C., Roy N. Freed, Special Attorney, Boston, Mass., and Manuel M. Gorman, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, of counsel).

Cravath Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant United States Alkali Export Ass'n, Inc. (William Dwight Whitney, and George S. Leonard, New York City, of counsel).

Dwight, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, for defendant Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (H. Allen Lochner, New York City, of counsel).

Sage, Gray, Todd & Sims, New York City, for defendant Hooker Electrochemical Co. (Inc.), William E. Sims, New York City, of counsel.

Chadbourne, Wallace, Parke & Whiteside, New York City, for defendant Mathieson Alkali Works (Inc.), Ralph D. Ray, and Abel I. Smith, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Kenneth B. Ray, New York City, for defendant Westvaco Chlorine Products Corporation.

Coudert Brothers, New York City, for defendants Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited (London) and Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited (New York), Alexis Coudert, New York City, of counsel.

Oliver & Donnally, New York City, for California Alkali Export Ass'n and West End Chemical Co., Michael F. McCarthy, and Martin A. Meyer, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

S. H. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

This is an equitable proceeding brought by the United States under Section 4 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C.A. § 4, to restrain certain practices alleged to be in violation of Section 1 of the same Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1. The complaint was filed in March, 1944, and named as defendants two domestic export associations organized under the Export Trade Act of 1918, Webb-Pomerene Law, 40 Stat. 516, 517, Public Law 126, 65th Cong., 2nd Sess., 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 61-65, thirteen corporate members of one or the other of said associations, and a corporation of the United Kingdom together with its New York subsidiary.

Defendants, all of which either manufacture, distribute, or export alkalis, are charged with entering into a series of agreements and engaging in concerted practices whereby the export of alkalis from the United States to many markets of the world has been restricted; the import of alkalis into the United States from abroad has been prohibited; the production of alkalis within the United States has been curtailed and limited; competition between defendants and others has been eliminated; the trade of domestic competitors of the defendants engaged in exporting alkalis has been restrained; and prices of caustic soda in the United States have been fixed.

Before the trial, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that under Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Export Trade Act of 1918, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 61, 62, 65 (hereinafter referred to as the Webb Act), the Attorney General was without authority to institute this suit until investigations and recommendations had first been made by the Federal Trade Commission. Both the District Court, United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n, D.C. 58 F.Supp. 785, and the Supreme Court, United States Alkali Ass'n v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554, rejected this contention and the case proceeded to trial before the late Judge Bright. Evidence was taken, testimony completed, and argument and briefs of counsel were considered, but Judge Bright's untimely death prevented him from rendering a decision in the case. Subsequently, the entire proceeding was referred to me with the understanding that decision of the matter would be made upon the case that had been presented before Judge Bright, after reargument before me on the record as made.

I. The Defendants.

The principal defendant, the United States Alkali Export Association (hereinafter referred to as "Alkasso"), was organized as a Delaware corporation in 1919, and, pursuant to the Webb Act, filed in that year with the Federal Trade Commission a verified written statement containing the location of its offices, names and addresses of its officers and stockholders, and a copy of its certificate of incorporation and by-laws.

Each of Alkasso's members holds stock in Alkasso, has a representative on its board of directors, and has executed a membership agreement. The purpose of the Association is to handle all sales of its members in foreign markets and, to that end, it has its own sales agents abroad, ships and sells as an independent corporation, and determines distribution of material, prices, terms, and other conditions of sale. Originally starting with five members, Alkasso's present membership numbers eleven of the most important alkali producing companies in the United States, all of which are defendants in this suit. (See chart of individual corporate defendants, infra, p. 86 F.Supp. 64.)

The California Alkali Export Association, otherwise known as "Calkex", is the second domestic export association named in the complaint. Calkex, a California corporation organized in 1936, was originally composed of three corporate members, West End Chemical Co., Inc., Pacific Alkali Co., Ltd., and American Potash & Chemical Corporation. Of these corporations, however, West End is the sole remaining member of Calkex and the only defendant in this case. American Potash withdrew from Calkex in April, 1944 at the behest of the Alien Property Custodian, who had obtained control of substantially all its capital stock; while Pacific Alkali, a defendant named in the complaint when filed, subsequently withdrew from Calkex, and the action against it was voluntarily dismissed.

Also joined as parties defendant are Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd. (hereinafter termed "I. C. I."), a British corporation which manufactures and exports alkalis, and its wholly owned New York subsidiary, Imperial Chemical Industries (New York) Ltd. (later referred to as "I. C. I., New York").

The complaint charges as "co-conspirators", though not defendants, the American Potash & Chemical Corporation, mentioned above, Solvey Process Company, an important domestic producer of alkalis and a member of Alkasso from 1919 until 1941, Solvay et Cie — hereinafter termed "Belgian Solvay" — a corporation of the Kingdom of Belgium and a principal manufacturer of alkalis in Europe, and I. G. Farben-industrie Aktiengesellschaft, more widely known as "I. G. Farben", one of the largest chemical companies in the world at the time the acts and agreements alleged by the Government occurred.

II. Products of Defendants.

It is important both for a general understanding of the entire case and to determine certain specific issues regarding the legality of defendants' conduct to summarize briefly the nature and characteristics of the products which were subject to the agreements and practices charged in the complaint.

What has so far been phrased in general terms as the production of "alkalis" in reality embraces the manufacture of three separate but closely related chemical substances: (1) Sodium Bicarbonate; (2) Soda Ash; and (3) Caustic Soda. Sodium Bicarbonate, well known as a household remedy for gastronomical disturbances, is also useful in cooking, and serves important industrial needs. Soda ash is a basic ingredient in the manufacture of glass, textiles, and other chemicals, while caustic soda is used in the making of soap, textiles, rayon, paper, and the refining of petroleum products.

These alkalis are produced by three common methods. The oldest and perhaps the one which yields the most satisfactory product goes under the name of the Solvay process or ammonia-soda process. Here, salt brine is mixed with ammonia and carbon dioxide to produce bicarbonate of soda. The latter is heated and in turn becomes soda ash, while soda ash, causticized with lime, reacts chemically to produce caustic soda. Thus all three alkali products are produced in the various stages of a series of consecutive chemical reactions.1

While the Solvay process is a deliberate and controlled method of manufacturing all three alkali products, bicarbonate of soda, soda ash, and caustic soda, the latter substance, caustic soda, also results as a by-product in the production of an increasingly important chemical, chlorine, by the electrolysis of purified brine. Formerly, caustic soda produced indirectly through the manufacture of chlorine, hereafter denominated electrolytic caustic, composed only a small proportion of the total amount of caustic made in this country, but the increased demand for chlorine in recent years has necessarily led to greater manufacture of electrolytic caustic2; so that by 1943, approximately 60% of total caustic produced in the United States was made by the electrolytic process.

Two of the alkalis, soda ash and bicarbonate of soda, can also be manufactured through the evaporation and purification of natural brine, the final method by which alkalis are produced.

The chart3 below lists the domestic corporate defendants, the products they manufacture, and the method employed in production.

III. The International Cartel.

No issue of fact is presented with regard to the agreements, as later set forth, which the Government maintains are violations of its anti-trust laws. The answers of Alkasso and of I. C. I. admit the execution of agreements relating to the division of world markets, the assignment of international quotas, and the fixing of prices in territories other than the United States, and the individual corporate members of Alkasso admitted knowledge of these cartel arrangements. Solely for determination, therefore, is their legality under the provisions of the Sherman Act and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Horizons Intern., Inc. v. Baldrige
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • January 28, 1987
    ...Ass'n, 58 F.Supp. 785 (S.D.N.Y.1944), aff'd, 325 U.S. 196, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554 (1945) (jurisdictional issue), aff'd, 86 F.Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y.1949) (on the merits) (Webb-Pomerene does not limit Department of Justice enforcement against cartel limiting imports to the United States res......
  • McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • April 14, 1982
    ...but mandated. See Arthur Murray, Inc. v. Reserve Plan, Inc., 406 F.2d 1138, 1145 (8th Cir. 1969); United States v. United States Alkali Export Association, 86 F.Supp. 59, 67 (S.D.N.Y.1949); Fashion Originators Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 114 F.2d 80, 85 (2d Cir. 1940......
  • Rohm and Haas Co. v. Dawson Chemical Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • January 5, 1983
    ...971, 95 L.Ed. 1199 (1951); Pacific Coast Agricultural Export Ass'n v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., supra; United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n, Inc., 86 F.Supp. 59, 66 (S.D.N.Y.1949); United States v. National Lead Co., 63 F.Supp. 513, 523 (S.D.N.Y.1945), aff'd, 332 U.S. 319, 67 S.C......
  • Vanadium Corp. of America v. Susquehanna Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 26, 1962
    ...12. 89 See, e. g., United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., D.C.Mass., 92 F.Supp. 947, 961-962; United States v. United States Alkali Export Ass'n, Inc., D.C.S.D. N.Y., 86 F.Supp. 59. 90 The following cases, which in turn cite all the former cases, in the District of Delaware and the T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust Procedural issues
    • January 1, 2015
    ...Grp., No. 1:13-CV-01236 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2013), 310 United States v. U.S. Alkali Exp. Ass’n, 58 F. Supp. 785 (S.D.N.Y.1944), aff’d , 86 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1949), 49 United States v. U.S. Alkali Exp. Ass’n, 86 F. Supp. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 1949), 47 United States v. United Phosphorus, Ltd., 322 F......
  • The International Scope of U.S. Antitrust
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Handbook on the Scope of Antitrust An introduction to the scope of antitrust
    • January 1, 2015
    ...regulation, Export Trade Certificates of Review, 15 C.F.R. § 325. 99. 15 U.S.C. § 61. 100. United States v. U.S. Alkali Exp. Ass’n, 86 F. Supp. 59, 70-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1949) (holding that act did not protect an export association that joined a foreign cartel or controlled the terms of contracts......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT