Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
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-K for the period ended December 31, 2011. 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 were not listed on the CSF. Following the issuance of the SSURO, the Company brought an action against USEPA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking injunctive relief. 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). Since that time, the Company has been negotiating with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of some existing stocks. As of March 31, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $19,890 and associated intangible assets of $5,062 relating to this product line. At this point the Company cannot conclude that a loss relating to either intangible value or inventory is probable or reasonably estimable. 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. Fifteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder has been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. 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. 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. AMVAC answered the complaint on October 3, 2011. On February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint increasing the number of claimants to 2,939 and stating, among other things, that plaintiffs had alleged identical claims against defendants in 1998. Defendants believe that all claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. At this point, no discovery has taken place, and it is unknown how many of the plaintiffs may have been exposed to AMVAC's product or what injuries may have been sustained. Defendants (including the company) intend to file demurrer on the ground that the claims are time-barred. On April 5, 2012, at a case management conference, the court set a briefing schedule for demurrers with a hearing date of July 31, 2012. 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 claim in Florida 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter. 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 supplied DBCP in Costa Rica. The parties have completed briefing the motion to dismiss and are awaiting a hearing date from the court. 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. C. Other Matters 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 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. AMVAC was not served with any pleadings; however, those defendants who had been served with the Second Amended Complaint went on to file 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. In February 2012, plaintiffs entered into a settlement with the remaining named defendant and, in conjunction with that settlement, represented to the court that the matter in its entirety would be dismissed at or prior to a May 11, 2012 court hearing.

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-K for the period ended December 31, 2011.

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 were not listed on the CSF. Following the issuance of the SSURO, the Company brought an action against USEPA in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking injunctive relief. 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). Since that time, the Company has been negotiating with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of some existing stocks. As of March 31, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $19,890 and associated intangible assets of $5,062 relating to this product line. At this point the Company cannot conclude that a loss relating to either intangible value or inventory is probable or reasonably estimable.

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. Fifteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder has been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility.

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. 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. AMVAC answered the complaint on October 3, 2011. On February 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint increasing the number of claimants to 2,939 and stating, among other things, that plaintiffs had alleged identical claims against defendants in 1998. Defendants believe that all claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. At this point, no discovery has taken place, and it is unknown how many of the plaintiffs may have been exposed to AMVAC's product or what injuries may have been sustained. Defendants (including the company) intend to file demurrer on the ground that the claims are time-barred. On April 5, 2012, at a case management conference, the court set a briefing schedule for demurrers with a hearing date of July 31, 2012. 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 claim in Florida 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter. 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 supplied DBCP in Costa Rica. The parties have completed briefing the motion to dismiss and are awaiting a hearing date from the court. 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.

C. Other Matters

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 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. AMVAC was not served with any pleadings; however, those defendants who had been served with the Second Amended Complaint went on to file 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. In February 2012, plaintiffs entered into a settlement with the remaining named defendant and, in conjunction with that settlement, represented to the court that the matter in its entirety would be dismissed at or prior to a May 11, 2012 court hearing.