Litigation And Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Litigation And Environmental [Abstract]
Litigation And Environmental	(4) Litigation and Environmental A. PCNB Matters In August 2010, the USEPA issued a Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order ("SSURO") relating to the Company's USEPA-registered pentachloronitrobenzene ("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 regarding the basis for EPA's SSURO, or iii) any forewarning that EPA planned to issue a SSURO. 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 2010 in which it sought emergency and permanent injunctive relief. Over the course of several months, the Company worked with USEPA's technical team to address purported deficiencies in the CSF. Then, on August 17, 2011, the Chief Justice of that court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and vacated the SSURO on the ground that the signatory of the SSURO lacked the requisite authority to sign the order. Following the court's action, the Company continued working with USEPA both to revise the CSF and to consolidate product labels. On November 23, 2011, the USEPA approved registrations for the PCNB product line for all major commercial uses (including golf course, turf, certain potato uses, cotton, ornamental bulb and cole crops). Following issuance of the registrations, the Company sold a limited amount of PCNB into the turf market at the tail end of the season. The Company remains in discussion with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of some existing stocks. Given USEPA's issuance of the registrations, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency. On or about April 6, 2010, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ("PMRA") notified the Company of its intention to cancel the Canadian registration for 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. Notwithstanding the Company's objections, PMRA permitted certain registrations of PCNB to be cancelled as of December 31, 2010. The Company intends to seek a new registration for this product line in Canada; this process could take in excess of one year to complete. With respect to inventory in the Canadian channel, the Company will seek to have the goods returned and then to resell them. The value of these goods has been recorded at the appropriate net realizable value. B. DBCP Cases Over the course of the past 30 years, AMVAC and/or the Company have been named or otherwise implicated in a number of lawsuits concerning injuries allegedly arising from either contamination of water supplies or personal exposure to 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. At present, there are approximately 100 lawsuits, foreign and domestic, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Fifteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder have been filed in Nicaragua. Three of these domestic suits were brought by citizens of Nicaragua while the other domestic suits have been brought by citizens of other countries. These claims are all in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Only two of the suits (Suazo and Castillo, indicated below) filed in Nicaragua have been served on AMVAC. It should be noted that Nicaraguan plaintiffs had not been able to obtain domestic enforcement of decisions rendered by Nicaraguan courts. The Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a U.S. District Court's refusal to enforce a $97,000 Nicaraguan judgment rendered against certain US-based DBCP defendants finding, among other things, lack of international due process. Over the course of 2009, two actions that had been filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (named Mejia and Rivera) involving claims for personal injury to Nicaraguan banana plantation workers allegely arising from exposure to DBCP, were dismissed with prejudice by the court on its own motion with a finding of "fraud on the court" and "blatant extortion of the defendants." We believe that the court's findings in these cases has diminished the viability of the pending Nicaraguan cases generally. Further, we believe that Mejia and Rivera have had an effect upon other cases involving exposure to foreign residents, most notably the several cases alleging injury to 668 residents of the Ivory Coast (banana and pineapple plantation workers) which were dismissed in 2009 by the Los Angeles Superior Court without prejudice, as plaintiffs' counsel withdrew from the case and no one came forward to prosecute the action. As described more fully below, of the cases that are still pending domestically in 2011, in Hawaii, Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al was dismissed and is on appeal, while Adams involves claims that pre-dated AMVAC's sales into the relevant market; and the state cases in Louisiana continue to lie dormant. However, during 2011, following the dismissal of various cases in 2009, there was a resurgence of activity by plaintiffs in i) state court in California, where approximately 2,444 plaintiffs from the Philippines filed an action (Macasa); ii) in federal district court in Louisiana, where an action has been filed by the Hendler law firm on behalf of 259 workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica (Aguilar), and iii) in state court in Delaware, where an individual from Costa Rica has brought an action (Blanco). In all of the newly-filed matters, some or all of the plaintiffs face challenges from applicable statutes of limitations; many of them were parties to prior lawsuits. California Matter 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 1970's. It has been reported that approximately three quarters of the claimants were members of a banana workers' association that was a party to an action that had been brought in the Philippines in about 1998 and that other plaintiffs were members as of 2008. Defendants contend these plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. AMVAC answered the complaint on October 3, 2011. On February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint increasing the number of claimants to 2939 and stating, among other things, that plaintiffs had alleged identical claims against defendants in 1998. At this very early stage of the case, no discovery has taken place, it is unknown how many 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. The initial case management conference with the court took place on February 1, 2012 and an early step in the case is to determine the statute of limitations issue. AMVAC intends to defend this matter vigorously. At this early stage of the case, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter. Delaware Matter 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. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class certification, which was denied. AMVAC also contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to any AMVAC DBCP in Costa Rica. The motion to dismiss, which has been joined by all defendants, is presently scheduled for a hearing on March 9, 2012. AMVAC intends to defend the matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for the matter. Hawaiian Matters Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al In October 1997, AMVAC was served with a Complaint(s) in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al ("Patrickson Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs' exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Co., Shell Oil Company, and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The plaintiffs were banana workers and allege that they were exposed to DBCP in applying the product in their native countries. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers so exposed in these four countries. The plaintiffs allege sterility and other injuries. After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which is presently pending. In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute of limitations. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not set up a loss contingency for this matter. Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Co,, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Co., Dow Chemical Co. and Occidental Corporation. Plaintiff Mark Adams alleges he was exposed to DBCP in 1974 and 1975 while working on Dole's plantation on Oahu. Plaintiff Nelson Ng alleges he was exposed between 1971 and 1973 while working in Lanai City, Lanai. AMVAC answered the complaint on or about December 14, 2007. While little discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Dole Food Co. was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker's compensation benefits as it was the employer of plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs have been granted relief to seek an interim appeal as to the dismissal of Dole, which appeal is pending. A stay has been placed on discovery other than to obtain written records. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter. Louisiana Matters (Federal) 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 259 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 was dismissed from state court in Hawaii (see the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011) It is unknown how many of the plaintiffs have been exposed to AMVAC's product, what are the actual injuries if any 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 for these matters. Louisiana Matters (State) 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. With the United States Supreme Court holding there was no federal court jurisdiction in the Patrickson case, the federal court judge remanded the cases to Louisiana state court in June 2003. In state court, the three cases were assigned to two different judges. On November 17, 2006, the state court separated the cases handled by attorney Scott Hendler from the cases being pursued only against the growers handled by different counsel. Subsequently, the cases against the growers were settled and all those actions were dismissed. The cases handled by Mr. Hendler were supposed to be placed in a new action, which was not done. After a hearing on January 29, 2008, the court ruled on February 8, 2008 that these plaintiffs could still proceed in the existing cases rather than in a new pleading. In mid-June 2011, some 12 years after filing the actions, plaintiffs have propounded written discovery against defendants. No other discovery has been made; hence, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to AMVAC's product, what are the actual injuries if any 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 for this matter. Nicaraguan Matters In May 2005, two suits filed in Nicaragua in 2004 were received that name AMVAC, The Dow Chemical Company, Dole Food Co., Dole Fresh Fruit, and Standard Fruit Company. The two suits for personal injuries for sterility and reduced sperm counts have been filed on behalf of a total of 15 banana workers: Flavio Apolinar Castillo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 679/04. In December 2005, AMVAC received six additional, similar lawsuits filed on behalf of a total of 30 plaintiffs. On January 25, 2006, AMVAC was served with the Suazo and Castillo suits, and in March 2006, counsel in Nicaragua filed objections to jurisdiction over AMVAC in these two cases. The court finally ruled on all the defendants' objections on March 20, 2007 by denying each objection to jurisdiction; this ruling has been appealed. A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, by local counsel has found 85 suits filed pursuant to Public Law 364 that name AMVAC and include approximately 3,592 plaintiffs. However, only two cases, Castillo and Suazo, have been served on AMVAC. All but one of the suits in Nicaragua have been filed pursuant to Special Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua's Attorney General previously expressed as unconstitutional. Each of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs' claims $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In all of these cases, AMVAC is a joint defendant with Dow Chemical and Dole Food Company, Inc. AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364 violates international due process of law. AMVAC intends to contest personal jurisdiction and demand under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. Thus far, it appears that the Nicaraguan courts have denied all requests of other defendants under Law 364 that allow the defendants the option of consenting to jurisdiction in the United States. It is not presently known as to how many of these plaintiffs actually claim exposure to DBCP at the time AMVAC's product was allegedly used nor is there any verification of the claimed injuries. Based on the precedent of the earlier suits in Nicaragua, it would appear likely that the Nicaragua courts will, over the defendants' objections, enter multi-million dollar judgments for the plaintiffs and against all defendants in these cases. However, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. One such judgment (not including the Company) was entered in August 2005 for $97,000 for 150 plaintiffs against Dole Food and other entities. It has also been reported that on December 1, 2006, the Nicaraguan court rendered a judgment for $802,000 against Dow Chemical Company, Shell, Occidental, and Standard Fruit Company for some 1200 plaintiffs. An enforcement action (entitled Osorio) against Dole and Dow for the $97,000 judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida. In this enforcement action, on October 20, 2009, the federal court issued a lengthy decision refusing to enforce the judgment on the grounds that Law 364 violated due process of law and that the Nicaraguan courts were not impartial tribunals. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal on March 10, 2010. 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, among other things, 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 was contrary to 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. C. Other Matters Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the USEPA) served AMVAC B with a Notice of Violation alleging that two lots of Granutox 150 (formulated product having phorate as the active ingredient) stored at BASF S.A. (AMVAC's exclusive distributor in Brazil) and FMC Quimica do Brasil Ltda. (which formulates end-use product in that country) were not in compliance with the end-use registration on file with IBAMA. Specifically, IBAMA alleged that the color of the lots (gray) was inconsistent with the description in IBAMA's files (pink). IBAMA also indicated an intention to assess a fine of approximately $200 against AMVAC B. The Company has challenged the citation, among other reasons, on the ground that the change in color has to do with the removal of a coloring component and that such removal poses no environmental or toxicity risk. In March 2011, IBAMA denied AMVAC Brasil's first appeal. The Company believes, however, that the agency is statutorily prevented from levying a fine of this magnitude for an infraction of this nature. Thus, the Company has filed another appeal on these grounds and expects to hear a response within six months. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss of between $150 and $200 is probable and has set up a loss contingency in the amount of $150. Philip Adame v. State of California et al. On or about November 8, 2011, plaintiffs (approximately 130 residents living proximally to a 17 acre parcel in Santa Clara County, California, that had been operated by the University of California from 1921 to 2003 as a fungicide and herbicide testing facility known as the Bay Area Research Extension Center ("BAREC")) designated AMVAC and 11 other companies as a defendants in an Amendment to Second Amended Complaint (entitled Philip Adame v. State of California, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-08-CV-106710) in which plaintiffs allege property damage and physical injuries arising from the operation of BAREC. The Second Amended Complaint in this matter had been filed in October 2008 and had included defendants The Regents of the University of California and Velsicol Chemical Corporation, both of whom have since been dismissed from the action with prejudice following settlement with plaintiffs. At this stage, AMVAC has not been served with any pleadings. However, those defendants who have been served with the Second Amended Complaint have filed both a motion to quash and a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs failed to serve any of the newly named defendants with the pleading in which they were designated as defendants and, at any rate, failed to designate any of them as defendants within three years of the filing of the Complaint. AMVAC believes that the case has no merit and, if served, will defend the matter vigorously. At this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

(4) Litigation and Environmental

A. PCNB Matters

In August 2010, the USEPA issued a Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order ("SSURO") relating to the Company's USEPA-registered pentachloronitrobenzene ("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 regarding the basis for EPA's SSURO, or iii) any forewarning that EPA planned to issue a SSURO. 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 2010 in which it sought emergency and permanent injunctive relief. Over the course of several months, the Company worked with USEPA's technical team to address purported deficiencies in the CSF. Then, on August 17, 2011, the Chief Justice of that court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and vacated the SSURO on the ground that the signatory of the SSURO lacked the requisite authority to sign the order. Following the court's action, the Company continued working with USEPA both to revise the CSF and to consolidate product labels. On November 23, 2011, the USEPA approved registrations for the PCNB product line for all major commercial uses (including golf course, turf, certain potato uses, cotton, ornamental bulb and cole crops). Following issuance of the registrations, the Company sold a limited amount of PCNB into the turf market at the tail end of the season. The Company remains in discussion with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of some existing stocks. Given USEPA's issuance of the registrations, the Company cannot conclude that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency.

On or about April 6, 2010, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ("PMRA") notified the Company of its intention to cancel the Canadian registration for 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. Notwithstanding the Company's objections, PMRA permitted certain registrations of PCNB to be cancelled as of December 31, 2010. The Company intends to seek a new registration for this product line in Canada; this process could take in excess of one year to complete. With respect to inventory in the Canadian channel, the Company will seek to have the goods returned and then to resell them. The value of these goods has been recorded at the appropriate net realizable value.

B. DBCP Cases

Over the course of the past 30 years, AMVAC and/or the Company have been named or otherwise implicated in a number of lawsuits concerning injuries allegedly arising from either contamination of water supplies or personal exposure to 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.

At present, there are approximately 100 lawsuits, foreign and domestic, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Fifteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder have been filed in Nicaragua. Three of these domestic suits were brought by citizens of Nicaragua while the other domestic suits have been brought by citizens of other countries. These claims are all in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Only two of the suits (Suazo and Castillo, indicated below) filed in Nicaragua have been served on AMVAC. It should be noted that Nicaraguan plaintiffs had not been able to obtain domestic enforcement of decisions rendered by Nicaraguan courts. The Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a U.S. District Court's refusal to enforce a $97,000 Nicaraguan judgment rendered against certain US-based DBCP defendants finding, among other things, lack of international due process.

Over the course of 2009, two actions that had been filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court (named Mejia and Rivera) involving claims for personal injury to Nicaraguan banana plantation workers allegely arising from exposure to DBCP, were dismissed with prejudice by the court on its own motion with a finding of "fraud on the court" and "blatant extortion of the defendants." We believe that the court's findings in these cases has diminished the viability of the pending Nicaraguan cases generally. Further, we believe that Mejia and Rivera have had an effect upon other cases involving exposure to foreign residents, most notably the several cases alleging injury to 668 residents of the Ivory Coast (banana and pineapple plantation workers) which were dismissed in 2009 by the Los Angeles Superior Court without prejudice, as plaintiffs' counsel withdrew from the case and no one came forward to prosecute the action.

As described more fully below, of the cases that are still pending domestically in 2011, in Hawaii, Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al was dismissed and is on appeal, while Adams involves claims that pre-dated AMVAC's sales into the relevant market; and the state cases in Louisiana continue to lie dormant. However, during 2011, following the dismissal of various cases in 2009, there was a resurgence of activity by plaintiffs in i) state court in California, where approximately 2,444 plaintiffs from the Philippines filed an action (Macasa); ii) in federal district court in Louisiana, where an action has been filed by the Hendler law firm on behalf of 259 workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica (Aguilar), and iii) in state court in Delaware, where an individual from Costa Rica has brought an action (Blanco). In all of the newly-filed matters, some or all of the plaintiffs face challenges from applicable statutes of limitations; many of them were parties to prior lawsuits.

California Matter

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 1970's. It has been reported that approximately three quarters of the claimants were members of a banana workers' association that was a party to an action that had been brought in the Philippines in about 1998 and that other plaintiffs were members as of 2008. Defendants contend these plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. AMVAC answered the complaint on October 3, 2011. On February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint increasing the number of claimants to 2939 and stating, among other things, that plaintiffs had alleged identical claims against defendants in 1998. At this very early stage of the case, no discovery has taken place, it is unknown how many 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. The initial case management conference with the court took place on February 1, 2012 and an early step in the case is to determine the statute of limitations issue. AMVAC intends to defend this matter vigorously. At this early stage of the case, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

Delaware Matter

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. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class certification, which was denied. AMVAC also contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to any AMVAC DBCP in Costa Rica. The motion to dismiss, which has been joined by all defendants, is presently scheduled for a hearing on March 9, 2012. AMVAC intends to defend the matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for the matter.

Hawaiian Matters

Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al

In October 1997, AMVAC was served with a Complaint(s) in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al ("Patrickson Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs' exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Co., Shell Oil Company, and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The plaintiffs were banana workers and allege that they were exposed to DBCP in applying the product in their native countries. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers so exposed in these four countries. The plaintiffs allege sterility and other injuries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which is presently pending. In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute of limitations. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al

On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Co,, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Co., Dow Chemical Co. and Occidental Corporation. Plaintiff Mark Adams alleges he was exposed to DBCP in 1974 and 1975 while working on Dole's plantation on Oahu. Plaintiff Nelson Ng alleges he was exposed between 1971 and 1973 while working in Lanai City, Lanai. AMVAC answered the complaint on or about December 14, 2007. While little discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Dole Food Co. was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker's compensation benefits as it was the employer of plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs have been granted relief to seek an interim appeal as to the dismissal of Dole, which appeal is pending. A stay has been placed on discovery other than to obtain written records. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

Louisiana Matters (Federal)

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 259 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 was dismissed from state court in Hawaii (see the Company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011) It is unknown how many of the plaintiffs have been exposed to AMVAC's product, what are the actual injuries if any 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 for these matters.

Louisiana Matters (State)

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. With the United States Supreme Court holding there was no federal court jurisdiction in the Patrickson case, the federal court judge remanded the cases to Louisiana state court in June 2003. In state court, the three cases were assigned to two different judges. On November 17, 2006, the state court separated the cases handled by attorney Scott Hendler from the cases being pursued only against the growers handled by different counsel. Subsequently, the cases against the growers were settled and all those actions were dismissed. The cases handled by Mr. Hendler were supposed to be placed in a new action, which was not done. After a hearing on January 29, 2008, the court ruled on February 8, 2008 that these plaintiffs could still proceed in the existing cases rather than in a new pleading. In mid-June 2011, some 12 years after filing the actions, plaintiffs have propounded written discovery against defendants. No other discovery has been made; hence, it is unknown how many (if any) of the plaintiffs have been exposed to AMVAC's product, what are the actual injuries if any 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 for this matter.

Nicaraguan Matters

In May 2005, two suits filed in Nicaragua in 2004 were received that name AMVAC, The Dow Chemical Company, Dole Food Co., Dole Fresh Fruit, and Standard Fruit Company. The two suits for personal injuries for sterility and reduced sperm counts have been filed on behalf of a total of 15 banana workers: Flavio Apolinar Castillo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., No. 679/04. In December 2005, AMVAC received six additional, similar lawsuits filed on behalf of a total of 30 plaintiffs. On January 25, 2006, AMVAC was served with the Suazo and Castillo suits, and in March 2006, counsel in Nicaragua filed objections to jurisdiction over AMVAC in these two cases. The court finally ruled on all the defendants' objections on March 20, 2007 by denying each objection to jurisdiction; this ruling has been appealed.

A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, by local counsel has found 85 suits filed pursuant to Public Law 364 that name AMVAC and include approximately 3,592 plaintiffs. However, only two cases, Castillo and Suazo, have been served on AMVAC. All but one of the suits in Nicaragua have been filed pursuant to Special Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua's Attorney General previously expressed as unconstitutional. Each of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs' claims $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In all of these cases, AMVAC is a joint defendant with Dow Chemical and Dole Food Company, Inc.

AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364 violates international due process of law. AMVAC intends to contest personal jurisdiction and demand under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. Thus far, it appears that the Nicaraguan courts have denied all requests of other defendants under Law 364 that allow the defendants the option of consenting to jurisdiction in the United States. It is not presently known as to how many of these plaintiffs actually claim exposure to DBCP at the time AMVAC's product was allegedly used nor is there any verification of the claimed injuries. Based on the precedent of the earlier suits in Nicaragua, it would appear likely that the Nicaragua courts will, over the defendants' objections, enter multi-million dollar judgments for the plaintiffs and against all defendants in these cases.

However, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. One such judgment (not including the Company) was entered in August 2005 for $97,000 for 150 plaintiffs against Dole Food and other entities. It has also been reported that on December 1, 2006, the Nicaraguan court rendered a judgment for $802,000 against Dow Chemical Company, Shell, Occidental, and Standard Fruit Company for some 1200 plaintiffs. An enforcement action (entitled Osorio) against Dole and Dow for the $97,000 judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida. In this enforcement action, on October 20, 2009, the federal court issued a lengthy decision refusing to enforce the judgment on the grounds that Law 364 violated due process of law and that the Nicaraguan courts were not impartial tribunals. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal on March 10, 2010. 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, among other things, 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 was contrary to 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.

C. Other Matters

Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the USEPA) served AMVAC B with a Notice of Violation alleging that two lots of Granutox 150 (formulated product having phorate as the active ingredient) stored at BASF S.A. (AMVAC's exclusive distributor in Brazil) and FMC Quimica do Brasil Ltda. (which formulates end-use product in that country) were not in compliance with the end-use registration on file with IBAMA. Specifically, IBAMA alleged that the color of the lots (gray) was inconsistent with the description in IBAMA's files (pink). IBAMA also indicated an intention to assess a fine of approximately $200 against AMVAC B. The Company has challenged the citation, among other reasons, on the ground that the change in color has to do with the removal of a coloring component and that such removal poses no environmental or toxicity risk. In March 2011, IBAMA denied AMVAC Brasil's first appeal. The Company believes, however, that the agency is statutorily prevented from levying a fine of this magnitude for an infraction of this nature. Thus, the Company has filed another appeal on these grounds and expects to hear a response within six months. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss of between $150 and $200 is probable and has set up a loss contingency in the amount of $150.

Philip Adame v. State of California et al. On or about November 8, 2011, plaintiffs (approximately 130 residents living proximally to a 17 acre parcel in Santa Clara County, California, that had been operated by the University of California from 1921 to 2003 as a fungicide and herbicide testing facility known as the Bay Area Research Extension Center ("BAREC")) designated AMVAC and 11 other companies as a defendants in an Amendment to Second Amended Complaint (entitled Philip Adame v. State of California, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-08-CV-106710) in which plaintiffs allege property damage and physical injuries arising from the operation of BAREC. The Second Amended Complaint in this matter had been filed in October 2008 and had included defendants The Regents of the University of California and Velsicol Chemical Corporation, both of whom have since been dismissed from the action with prejudice following settlement with plaintiffs. At this stage, AMVAC has not been served with any pleadings. However, those defendants who have been served with the Second Amended Complaint have filed both a motion to quash and a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs failed to serve any of the newly named defendants with the pleading in which they were designated as defendants and, at any rate, failed to designate any of them as defendants within three years of the filing of the Complaint. AMVAC believes that the case has no merit and, if served, will defend the matter vigorously. At this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.