Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	11. 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 September 30, 2012. A. PCNB Matters In August 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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). In June 2012, USEPA approved certain flowable uses, including potato chemigation. In October 2012, USEPA authorized the Company to sell certain existing stocks of PCNB made solely from technical grade material that has been tested to be compliant with the revised CSF. At present, the Company continues to negotiate with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of other existing stocks. As of September 30, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $20,440 and associated intangible assets of $4,824. At this point the Company does not believe 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 infertility 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. 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 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 in 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 August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow’s motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. In response to that denial, on August 20, 2012, defendants filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations). Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed. Whatever the outcome on appeal, 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 Hendler-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 subsequently 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-Louisiana cases. On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware cases granted defendants’ motion to dismiss six complaints (filed on behalf of 235 plaintiffs) finding that the same claimants and claims were pending in the Hendler-Louisiana cases where they had been first filed. In October 2012, the federal district court in Louisiana granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Hendler-Louisiana Cases for plaintiffs’ failure to bring the action within the applicable statute of limitations. Further, with the stay of proceedings in Blanco, the Chaverri action has also been stayed, pending a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court (as previously described). With respect to the subject matter of Chaverri, at this stage of the proceedings, the Company 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. Defendant Dole has brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-Castillo case on the ground that they were presently parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. In September 2012, plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss, arguing that, in fact, while 14 of the 22 claimants were parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases, eight of them were not. With respect to the Marquinez matter, the company has filed an answer to the complaint. No discovery has commenced in either 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

9 Months Ended

Sep. 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 September 30, 2012.

A. PCNB Matters

In August 2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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). In June 2012, USEPA approved certain flowable uses, including potato chemigation. In October 2012, USEPA authorized the Company to sell certain existing stocks of PCNB made solely from technical grade material that has been tested to be compliant with the revised CSF. At present, the Company continues to negotiate with the agency on expanding the label to include certain minor uses and as to the proper labeling and disposition of other existing stocks. As of September 30, 2012, the Company held PCNB inventories in the amount of $20,440 and associated intangible assets of $4,824. At this point the Company does not believe 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 infertility 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.

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 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 in 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 August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow’s motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. In response to that denial, on August 20, 2012, defendants filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations). Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed. Whatever the outcome on appeal, 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 Hendler-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 subsequently 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-Louisiana cases. On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware cases granted defendants’ motion to dismiss six complaints (filed on behalf of 235 plaintiffs) finding that the same claimants and claims were pending in the Hendler-Louisiana cases where they had been first filed. In October 2012, the federal district court in Louisiana granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Hendler-Louisiana Cases for plaintiffs’ failure to bring the action within the applicable statute of limitations. Further, with the stay of proceedings in Blanco, the Chaverri action has also been stayed, pending a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court (as previously described). With respect to the subject matter of Chaverri, at this stage of the proceedings, the Company 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. Defendant Dole has brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-Castillo case on the ground that they were presently parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. In September 2012, plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss, arguing that, in fact, while 14 of the 22 claimants were parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases, eight of them were not. With respect to the Marquinez matter, the company has filed an answer to the complaint. No discovery has commenced in either 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.