EXHIBIT 32 [Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Letterhead] November 24, 1995 BY HAND Neil T. Anderson, Esq. Sullivan & Cromwell 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Re: CBI Confidentiality Agreement Dear Neil: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 21, 1995 and your mark-up of the proposed confidentiality agreement. As you know, your mark-up quite explicitly proposes that Praxair be treated more favorably than all other interested parties in that, among other things, Praxair would be permitted to continue its tender offer, engage in any other takeover activities and publicly disclose CBI's confidential information in connection with its tender offer. In essence, Praxair is willing to receive CBI's confidential information but only so long as Praxair is subject to virtually no restriction on its activity. Our draft would give Praxair an agreement no less favorable to it than those entered into by other interested parties. We believe that this is fair and is entirely appropriate. CBI has previously announced that it is actively engaged in exploring alternatives for maximizing shareholder value. To, as you put it, recognize Praxair's "unique status," while pleasing Praxair, would not in the judgment of CBI serve CBI's goal of maximizing shareholder value. The Board's fiduciary duties, of course, run to all CBI shareholders, not to Praxair. Neil T. Anderson, Esq. November 24, 1994 As you are aware, our proposed confidentiality agreement contains a two year standstill provision. In the interests of compromise and in order to facilitate your client's access to the information it requests, CBI would be willing to agree to a six month standstill period. We look forward to your thoughts. Sincerely, /s/Dick Katcher Richard D. Katcher RDK:b Enclosure