Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	11. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments since the filing of the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011. A. PCNB Matters On or about April 6, 2010, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ("PMRA") notified the Company of its intention to cancel the Canadian registration for the compound Petrochloronitrobenzine ("PCNB") in that country, citing as a reason the Company's failure to provide certain manufacturing data to the agency in a timely fashion. The Company subsequently provided the agency with the required data, and PMRA extended its notice to permit continued registration through at least the end of the calendar year. Further, in June 2010, PMRA issued a re-evaluation of PCNB and concluded that turf uses should be cancelled as of the end of calendar year 2010. In August 2010, the Company filed a notice of objection to the re-evaluation and sought a hearing on the matter at which to present technical data in support of that use. PMRA failed to respond to the notice of objection and has not set a hearing. As of December 31, 2010, the turf use for PCNB was discontinued in Canada. The Company has challenged this action on the ground that, among other things, PMRA abused its discretion in failing to set a hearing on the Company's objection. In late February 2011, PMRA responded to the Company's request for relief against cancellation and indicated that it was unwilling to reverse the cancellation informally. Accordingly, the Company intends to take formal action to have the registration reinstated. There is approximately $1,300 worth of PCNB inventory in the Canadian distribution channel for which the Company has not been paid. In light of PMRA's current position, it is possible that some or all of that material may be returned. Further, it is unclear to what extent the goods can be repackaged and resold. These questions may be dependent in part upon the outcome of the Company's negotiations with United States Environmental protection agency ("USEPA") as per the following section. The Company believes that a loss is probable within the range of $500 to $1,000 and has set up a loss contingency of $500. We will revisit this reserve as negotiations with PMRA and USEPA develop further. In August 2010, the USEPA issued a Stop Sale, Removal and Use Order ("SSURO") relating to the Company's USEPA-registered PCNB product line. The Company sells PCNB primarily for use on turf with the bulk of sales occurring in September and October. In issuing the SSURO, the USEPA alleged that the Company's product did not comply with the confidential statement of formula ("CSF") due to the presence of trace impurities that are not listed on the CSF. The SSURO was issued by the agency without either i) a specific finding of risk, ii) providing the Company an opportunity to present a technical case, and iii) any forewarning. Despite its efforts, the Company was unable to obtain informal resolution of the matter with the agency and in an effort to protect its business, filed an action against USEPA with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in late August in which it sought emergency and permanent injunctive relief. On September 2, 2010, that court denied the Company's motion for emergency relief, finding in effect that while it was concerned about unfairness in USEPA's actions, the agency was empowered to take those actions. The Company continues to pursue injunctive relief through this litigation. In fact, the Company sought an expedited hearing on the matter, however, in April 2011, the court denied that motion. In June 2011, the company filed a status report (which was opposed by the government) in which it sought a hearing date on the matter and also served to apprise the court of two recent cases in which USEPA has been found to have issued a stop sale order improperly. As of the date hereof, no hearing has yet been set. On the regulatory side, following the court's denial in September 2010, the Company filed an amended CSF with the agency and, over the course of the first two quarters of 2011, has been engaged in discussions with USEPA on technical matters relating to the CSF. At meetings between the technical teams held in March 2011, the agency indicated that it had made substantial progress on its review and provided a brief outline of its preliminary results. Also, after discussion with USEPA staff, the Company submitted a draft memorandum of agreement ("MOA") that would serve to outline the procedure for re-commencing distribution of PCNB products domestically in the event that the SSURO is lifted. The company met with the agency's technical team again on June 30, 2011, at which time the agency presented additional data from its risk assessment. It became clear during that meeting that the agency had not yet reached a final position on the applicable safety factors to be applied; we understand that the agency is analyzing that issue further and we expect to hear more on the subject in the near future. At June 30, 2011, the Company held inventories in the amount of $18,525 (up from $17,415 as of December 31, 2010 arising from continued manufacture of the product at a reduced rate under a new process designed to improve product quality) and associated intangible assets of $5,122 relating to this product line. It is not yet possible to predict with any certainty how long the review at USEPA may take, or what the agency's final conclusions will likely be with respect to either the CSF or the SSURO. Accordingly, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable and has not set up a loss contingency. However, if the registration were to be cancelled, the Company would be required to adjust the carrying value of the aforementioned assets. B. DBCP Cases A number of suits have been filed against AMVAC, alleging injury from exposure to the agricultural chemical 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP"). DBCP was manufactured by several chemical companies, including Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company and AMVAC and was approved by the USEPA to control nematodes. DBCP was also applied on banana farms in Latin America. The USEPA suspended registrations of DBCP in October 1979, except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. The USEPA suspension was partially based on 1977 studies by other manufacturers that indicated a link between male sterility and exposure to DBCP among their factory production workers producing the product. There are approximately 100 lawsuits, foreign and domestic, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Fourteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder have been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Eastern District of Louisiana Cases On June 1, 2011, seven separate actions were filed by the Hendler law firm in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of over 200 individual plaintiffs (banana plantation workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica) against Dole Food Company, the Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, and Amvac Chemical Corporation (to name a few) which, for purposes of convenience here, are encaptioned Aguilar et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of Louisiana No. CV-01305-CJB-SS). These matters allege personal injury (including sterility, cancer, skin disorders and other conditions) arising from alleged exposure to DBCP within the time period from 1960 through 1985 or later. A number of the plaintiffs appear to have been drawn from earlier DBCP litigation matters filed by the Hendler law firm, including, for example, the Mendez case that is in the process of being dismissed from state court in Hawaii (see the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011). The matters have not yet been served on Amvac; however, plaintiffs have delivered complaints and a request to waive service of a summons. It is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to Amvac's product, what are the actual injuries and whether and what statutes of limitation may apply. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefore. State Court Matters in Louisiana In November 1999, Amvac was served with three complaints filed in the 29^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana; we have reported on these matters under the name of the lead case, Eduardo Soriano, et al. v. Amvac Chemical Corporation et al. These matters allege personal injuries to about 314 persons (167 from Ecuador, 102 from Costa Rica, and 45 from Guatemala) from alleged exposure to DBCP. In mid-June 2011, some 12 years after filing the actions, plaintiffs have propounded written discovery against defendants. No other discovery has been done; hence, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to Amvac's product, what are the actual injuries and whether and what statutes of limitation may apply. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefore. Update on Osorio As reported by the Company in its Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, on October 20, 2009, in a case captioned Osorio v. Dole Food Company, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court entered an order in which it refused to recognize a $97 million judgment that had been rendered by a trial court in Chinandega, Nicaragua in favor of 150 plaintiffs against Dow and Dole under Special law 364 for alleged exposure to DBCP. On March 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to refuse to enforce the Nicaraguan judgment under the Florida Recognition Act, finding, as the district court did, a lack of subject matter/personal jurisdiction, the fact that judgment had been rendered under a system (in Nicaragua) that does not provide procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law, and inconsistency with public policy. The 11^th Circuit Court did not address whether the Nicaraguan courts "do not provide impartial tribunals" as the district court had found.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

11. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments since the filing of the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011.

A. PCNB Matters

On or about April 6, 2010, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ("PMRA") notified the Company of its intention to cancel the Canadian registration for the compound Petrochloronitrobenzine ("PCNB") in that country, citing as a reason the Company's failure to provide certain manufacturing data to the agency in a timely fashion. The Company subsequently provided the agency with the required data, and PMRA extended its notice to permit continued registration through at least the end of the calendar year. Further, in June 2010, PMRA issued a re-evaluation of PCNB and concluded that turf uses should be cancelled as of the end of calendar year 2010. In August 2010, the Company filed a notice of objection to the re-evaluation and sought a hearing on the matter at which to present technical data in support of that use. PMRA failed to respond to the notice of objection and has not set a hearing. As of December 31, 2010, the turf use for PCNB was discontinued in Canada. The Company has challenged this action on the ground that, among other things, PMRA abused its discretion in failing to set a hearing on the Company's objection. In late February 2011, PMRA responded to the Company's request for relief against cancellation and indicated that it was unwilling to reverse the cancellation informally. Accordingly, the Company intends to take formal action to have the registration reinstated. There is approximately $1,300 worth of PCNB inventory in the Canadian distribution channel for which the Company has not been paid. In light of PMRA's current position, it is possible that some or all of that material may be returned. Further, it is unclear to what extent the goods can be repackaged and resold. These questions may be dependent in part upon the outcome of the Company's negotiations with United States Environmental protection agency ("USEPA") as per the following section. The Company believes that a loss is probable within the range of $500 to $1,000 and has set up a loss contingency of $500. We will revisit this reserve as negotiations with PMRA and USEPA develop further.

In August 2010, the USEPA issued a Stop Sale, Removal and Use Order ("SSURO") relating to the Company's USEPA-registered PCNB product line. The Company sells PCNB primarily for use on turf with the bulk of sales occurring in September and October. In issuing the SSURO, the USEPA alleged that the Company's product did not comply with the confidential statement of formula ("CSF") due to the presence of trace impurities that are not listed on the CSF. The SSURO was issued by the agency without either i) a specific finding of risk, ii) providing the Company an opportunity to present a technical case, and iii) any forewarning. Despite its efforts, the Company was unable to obtain informal resolution of the matter with the agency and in an effort to protect its business, filed an action against USEPA with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in late August in which it sought emergency and permanent injunctive relief. On September 2, 2010, that court denied the Company's motion for emergency relief, finding in effect that while it was concerned about unfairness in USEPA's actions, the agency was empowered to take those actions. The Company continues to pursue injunctive relief through this litigation. In fact, the Company sought an expedited hearing on the matter, however, in April 2011, the court denied that motion. In June 2011, the company filed a status report (which was opposed by the government) in which it sought a hearing date on the matter and also served to apprise the court of two recent cases in which USEPA has been found to have issued a stop sale order improperly. As of the date hereof, no hearing has yet been set.

On the regulatory side, following the court's denial in September 2010, the Company filed an amended CSF with the agency and, over the course of the first two quarters of 2011, has been engaged in discussions with USEPA on technical matters relating to the CSF. At meetings between the technical teams held in March 2011, the agency indicated that it had made substantial progress on its review and provided a brief outline of its preliminary results. Also, after discussion with USEPA staff, the Company submitted a draft memorandum of agreement ("MOA") that would serve to outline the procedure for re-commencing distribution of PCNB products domestically in the event that the SSURO is lifted. The company met with the agency's technical team again on June 30, 2011, at which time the agency presented additional data from its risk assessment. It became clear during that meeting that the agency had not yet reached a final position on the applicable safety factors to be applied; we understand that the agency is analyzing that issue further and we expect to hear more on the subject in the near future.

At June 30, 2011, the Company held inventories in the amount of $18,525 (up from $17,415 as of December 31, 2010 arising from continued manufacture of the product at a reduced rate under a new process designed to improve product quality) and associated intangible assets of $5,122 relating to this product line. It is not yet possible to predict with any certainty how long the review at USEPA may take, or what the agency's final conclusions will likely be with respect to either the CSF or the SSURO. Accordingly, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable and has not set up a loss contingency. However, if the registration were to be cancelled, the Company would be required to adjust the carrying value of the aforementioned assets.

B. DBCP Cases

A number of suits have been filed against AMVAC, alleging injury from exposure to the agricultural chemical 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP"). DBCP was manufactured by several chemical companies, including Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company and AMVAC and was approved by the USEPA to control nematodes. DBCP was also applied on banana farms in Latin America. The USEPA suspended registrations of DBCP in October 1979, except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. The USEPA suspension was partially based on 1977 studies by other manufacturers that indicated a link between male sterility and exposure to DBCP among their factory production workers producing the product. There are approximately 100 lawsuits, foreign and domestic, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Fourteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder have been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility.

Eastern District of Louisiana Cases

On June 1, 2011, seven separate actions were filed by the Hendler law firm in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of over 200 individual plaintiffs (banana plantation workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica) against Dole Food Company, the Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, and Amvac Chemical Corporation (to name a few) which, for purposes of convenience here, are encaptioned Aguilar et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of Louisiana No. CV-01305-CJB-SS). These matters allege personal injury (including sterility, cancer, skin disorders and other conditions) arising from alleged exposure to DBCP within the time period from 1960 through 1985 or later. A number of the plaintiffs appear to have been drawn from earlier DBCP litigation matters filed by the Hendler law firm, including, for example, the Mendez case that is in the process of being dismissed from state court in Hawaii (see the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011). The matters have not yet been served on Amvac; however, plaintiffs have delivered complaints and a request to waive service of a summons. It is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to Amvac's product, what are the actual injuries and whether and what statutes of limitation may apply. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefore.

State Court Matters in Louisiana

In November 1999, Amvac was served with three complaints filed in the 29^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana; we have reported on these matters under the name of the lead case, Eduardo Soriano, et al. v. Amvac Chemical Corporation et al. These matters allege personal injuries to about 314 persons (167 from Ecuador, 102 from Costa Rica, and 45 from Guatemala) from alleged exposure to DBCP. In mid-June 2011, some 12 years after filing the actions, plaintiffs have propounded written discovery against defendants. No other discovery has been done; hence, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to Amvac's product, what are the actual injuries and whether and what statutes of limitation may apply. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefore.

Update on Osorio

As reported by the Company in its Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, on October 20, 2009, in a case captioned Osorio v. Dole Food Company, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court entered an order in which it refused to recognize a $97 million judgment that had been rendered by a trial court in Chinandega, Nicaragua in favor of 150 plaintiffs against Dow and Dole under Special law 364 for alleged exposure to DBCP. On March 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to refuse to enforce the Nicaraguan judgment under the Florida Recognition Act, finding, as the district court did, a lack of subject matter/personal jurisdiction, the fact that judgment had been rendered under a system (in Nicaragua) that does not provide procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law, and inconsistency with public policy. The 11^th Circuit Court did not address whether the Nicaraguan courts "do not provide impartial tribunals" as the district court had found.