Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings 11. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments during the three month period ended June 30, 2012. 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 June 30, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $20,036 and associated intangible assets of $4,943. At this point the Company cannot conclude that a loss relating to either inventory or intangible value 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. Following the filing of a demurrer by defendants in the action and in light of the fact that, among other things, Amvac had not been served with a complaint until more than two years after the expiration of applicable statutes of limitation, on June 22, 2012, plaintiff dismissed Amvac from the action with prejudice. Delaware Matters 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. On May 31, 2012, the court informed defendants of its intention to deny the motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. Accordingly, 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. On or about May 31, 2012 (the day on which the Blanco court determined to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss), the Hendler law firm, which represents plaintiffs in seven related matters currently pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Hendler-Louisiana Cases” referred to in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 as Aguilar et al., v. Dole Fruit Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of LA No. CV-01305-CJB-SS)), filed nine separate actions, eight with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Hendler – Delaware Cases” (USCD< DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA)) and one with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (which, for purposes of this filing shall be referred to as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., case no. N12C-06-017-JOH). Amvac received these complaints by mail on or about July 21, 2012. Six of the eight Handler – Delaware cases and Chaverri involve claims for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf of 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama. Dole has brought a motion to dismiss these seven matters under the “first-to-file” theory of jurisdiction, specifically in light of the fact that they involve identical claims and claimants as those appearing in the Hendler – Louisian cases, (where a motion for summary judgment is currently pending seeking dismissal based upon the applicable statutes of limitation), that plaintiffs’ counsel has informed the Louisiana court that it was filing the actions in Delaware in case it obtained an unfavorable ruling in Louisiana, and that this is a clear case of forum shopping. The Company has joined in Dole’s motion to dismiss and, with respect to the subject matters, at this stage of the proceedings does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency. Two of the eight Hendler-Delaware Cases (namely, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) are unrelated to the Hendler-Louisiana Cases and, involve claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP over the course of the late 1960’s through the mid-1980’s on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. Defendants are investigating possible defenses to Abad-Castillo and Marquinez, including whether any of the claimants had appeared in prior actions that may have been settled or dismissed, what statutes of limitation may apply, and whether claimants used any of defendants’ products. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously No discovery has commenced in any of these matters, and it is too early to predict whether a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the company has not set up a loss contingency for these two matters.

Legal Proceedings

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

11. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments during the three month period ended June 30, 2012.

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 June 30, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $20,036 and associated intangible assets of $4,943. At this point the Company cannot conclude that a loss relating to either inventory or intangible value 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. Following the filing of a demurrer by defendants in the action and in light of the fact that, among other things, Amvac had not been served with a complaint until more than two years after the expiration of applicable statutes of limitation, on June 22, 2012, plaintiff dismissed Amvac from the action with prejudice.

Delaware Matters

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. On May 31, 2012, the court informed defendants of its intention to deny the motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. Accordingly, 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.

On or about May 31, 2012 (the day on which the Blanco court determined to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss), the Hendler law firm, which represents plaintiffs in seven related matters currently pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Hendler-Louisiana Cases” referred to in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 as Aguilar et al., v. Dole Fruit Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of LA No. CV-01305-CJB-SS)), filed nine separate actions, eight with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Hendler – Delaware Cases” (USCD< DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA)) and one with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (which, for purposes of this filing shall be referred to as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., case no. N12C-06-017-JOH). Amvac received these complaints by mail on or about July 21, 2012. Six of the eight Handler – Delaware cases and Chaverri involve claims for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf of 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama. Dole has brought a motion to dismiss these seven matters under the “first-to-file” theory of jurisdiction, specifically in light of the fact that they involve identical claims and claimants as those appearing in the Hendler – Louisian cases, (where a motion for summary judgment is currently pending seeking dismissal based upon the applicable statutes of limitation), that plaintiffs’ counsel has informed the Louisiana court that it was filing the actions in Delaware in case it obtained an unfavorable ruling in Louisiana, and that this is a clear case of forum shopping. The Company has joined in Dole’s motion to dismiss and, with respect to the subject matters, at this stage of the proceedings does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency.

Two of the eight Hendler-Delaware Cases (namely, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) are unrelated to the Hendler-Louisiana Cases and, involve claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP over the course of the late 1960’s through the mid-1980’s on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. Defendants are investigating possible defenses to Abad-Castillo and Marquinez, including whether any of the claimants had appeared in prior actions that may have been settled or dismissed, what statutes of limitation may apply, and whether claimants used any of defendants’ products. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously No discovery has commenced in any of these matters, and it is too early to predict whether a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the company has not set up a loss contingency for these two matters.