Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
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 June 30, 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 Pentrochloronitrobenzine ("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 did 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, Use and Removal 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, or 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. On August 17, 2011, the Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and vacated the SSURO on the grounds that the signatory at USEPA lacked the authority to issue such an order in the first instance. Following the court's ruling, the Company has been working with USEPA to obtain approval of its amended CSF and to amend and consolidate PCNB labels with the aim of re-entering the market in the near future. At September 30, 2011, the Company held inventories in the amount of $19,400, up from $18,500 as of June 30, 2011, (arising from continued manufacture of the product at a reduced rate) and associated intangible assets of $5,062 relating to this product line. Given the progress made to date on the amended CSF and label revisions, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable and has not set up a loss contingency. However, if these registrations were 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. State Matter in Delaware On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned Blanco v. Amvac Chemical Corporation et al was filed with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff residing in Costa Rica against several defendants, including, among others, Amvac, The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Dole Food Company. In the action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa Rica. Defendant Dow has filed a motion to dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same action in 1995. Amvac and other defendants are joining in the motion to dismiss, the hearing for which has been set for January 20, 2012 The Company believes that the case has no merit. Amvac intends to defend the matter vigorously, and the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefor. State Matter in California On August 8, 2011, an action encaptioned Macasa v. The Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., was filed with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (No. BC 467134) on behalf of 2,444 individual plaintiffs from the Philippines against several defendants, including, among others, The Dole Food Company, Del Monte Foods, Inc., Shell Chemical Company, the Dow Chemical Company and Amvac Chemical Corporation. Plaintiffs, all of whom worked on banana plantations in the Philippines, have alleged physical injury (namely, sterility) arising from alleged exposure to DBCP for an indeterminate period of time commencing in the late 1970's. There are preliminary indications that many if not most of the claimants have filed similar actions in the Philippines. At this stage, no discovery has been done, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs may have been exposed to Amvac's product, what injuries may have been sustained and whether any statutes of limitations may bar recovery. Amvac intends to defend this matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefor.

Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 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 June 30, 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 Pentrochloronitrobenzine ("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 did 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, Use and Removal 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, or 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. On August 17, 2011, the Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and vacated the SSURO on the grounds that the signatory at USEPA lacked the authority to issue such an order in the first instance. Following the court's ruling, the Company has been working with USEPA to obtain approval of its amended CSF and to amend and consolidate PCNB labels with the aim of re-entering the market in the near future.

At September 30, 2011, the Company held inventories in the amount of $19,400, up from $18,500 as of June 30, 2011, (arising from continued manufacture of the product at a reduced rate) and associated intangible assets of $5,062 relating to this product line. Given the progress made to date on the amended CSF and label revisions, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable and has not set up a loss contingency. However, if these registrations were 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.

State Matter in Delaware

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned Blanco v. Amvac Chemical Corporation et al was filed with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff residing in Costa Rica against several defendants, including, among others, Amvac, The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Dole Food Company. In the action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa Rica. Defendant Dow has filed a motion to dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same action in 1995. Amvac and other defendants are joining in the motion to dismiss, the hearing for which has been set for January 20, 2012 The Company believes that the case has no merit. Amvac intends to defend the matter vigorously, and the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefor.

State Matter in California

On August 8, 2011, an action encaptioned Macasa v. The Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., was filed with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (No. BC 467134) on behalf of 2,444 individual plaintiffs from the Philippines against several defendants, including, among others, The Dole Food Company, Del Monte Foods, Inc., Shell Chemical Company, the Dow Chemical Company and Amvac Chemical Corporation. Plaintiffs, all of whom worked on banana plantations in the Philippines, have alleged physical injury (namely, sterility) arising from alleged exposure to DBCP for an indeterminate period of time commencing in the late 1970's. There are preliminary indications that many if not most of the claimants have filed similar actions in the Philippines. At this stage, no discovery has been done, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs may have been exposed to Amvac's product, what injuries may have been sustained and whether any statutes of limitations may bar recovery. Amvac intends to defend this matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency therefor.