Sector News

Clariant names new CEO to answer questions over future

December 13, 2020
Chemical Value Chain

Speciality chemicals maker Clariant named industry veteran Conrad Keijzer as its chief executive on Wednesday to deliver a restructuring plan after a year of turmoil and decide whether the Swiss company should remain independent.

Keijzer, a 52-year-old Dutchman, spent most of his career at paints maker Akzo Nobel but served as CEO of France-based chemicals firm Imerys for 21 months before quitting in October 2019 amid falling profits.

Pressing business for Keijzer when he joins Clariant on Jan. 1 will include cutting around 1,000 jobs, a programme announced in late November as the company slims down following a series of divestments.

Clariant is still trying to offload its pigments division, a move delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic that managers said recently could now come by June 2021.

Baader Helvea analyst Markus Mayer said Keijzer’s appointment was “an improvement from the current situation,” but added his time at Imerys raised questions.

“At Imerys, we saw Mr. Keijzer more as a lone wolf who did not go along with the Board of Directors most of the time,” he said. “Additionally, (Imerys) did not manage to perform well in Fiscal Year 2019.”

At 1410 GMT, Clariant shares were up 0.9% at 18.25 Swiss francs.

On a call with reporters on Wednesday, Keijzer acknowledged conflicts with Imerys’ board leadership before his departure.

The CEO post at Clariant, vacant for more than a year, was filled on an interim basis by former CEO and current Chairman Hariolf Kottmann, who drove Clariant’s 2017 failed merger bid with Huntsman before activist investors blocked it.

Kottmann also halted a 2019 joint venture with Saudi Basic Industries (SABIC), still Clariant’s biggest investor with around a 30% stake, after a disagreement over price. Kottmann remains chairman.

Analysts including from Barclays have said they consider a slimmed-down Clariant, whose remaining divisions produce about $4 billion in annual revenue, a target for a buyer or merger.

“We can’t rule out more bid speculation but don’t think valuation appropriately compensates investors for the risk,” Barclays wrote in a note this week.

Asked about speculation that Clariant is a takeover target, Keijzer said only that he anticipated both organic growth and acquisitions.

Baader Helvea’s Mayer said Keijzer’s ties to Akzo Nobel could make him appropriate leader, should Clariant combine with Nouryon, the former Akzo Nobel speciality chemicals business now owned by private equity company Carlyle.

On the call with reporters, Kottmann said Clariant talked to Akzo Nobel years ago about a possible deal for Nouryon assets, before Carlyle stepped in.

“It’s difficult to talk about what’s going on at Nouryon,” Kottmann said, when asked a potential deal. “The situation today is totally different.”

By John Miller

Source: Reuters.com

comments closed

Related News

September 25, 2022

France and Sweden both launch ‘first of a kind’ hydrogen facilities

Chemical Value Chain

France has launched an offshore green hydrogen production platform at the country’s Port of Saint-Nazaire this week, along with its first offshore wind farm. The hydrogen plant, which its operators say is the world’s first facility of its type, coincides with the launch of another “first of its kind” facility in Sweden dedicated to storing hydrogen in an underground lined rock cavern (LRC).

September 25, 2022

NextChem announces €194-million grant for waste-to-hydrogen project in Rome

Chemical Value Chain

The project sets up the Hydrogen Valley in Rome, the first industrial-scale technological hub for the development of the national supply chain for the production, transport, storage and use of hydrogen for the decarbonization of industrial processes and for sustainable mobility.

September 25, 2022

The problem with hydrogen

Chemical Value Chain

At first glance, hydrogen seems to be the perfect solution to our energy needs. It doesn’t produce any carbon dioxide when used. It can store energy for long periods of time. It doesn’t leave behind hazardous waste materials, like nuclear does. And it doesn’t require large swathes of land to be flooded, like hydroelectricity. Seems too good to be true. So…what’s the catch?