Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments during the three month period ended September 30, 2013. A. 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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 possible link between male fertility and exposure to DBCP among their factory production workers involved with 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 have been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Following is a summary of material developments in these matters since the commencement of this reporting period. For the sake of brevity, we refer to cases by the names set forth in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, which sets forth the procedural history of these matters in greater detail. Delaware and Louisiana Matters On September 19, 2013, in Marquinez, (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 12-695-RGA involving claims for injury to 22 banana plantation workers allegedly caused by exposure to DBCP), the court granted in part, and denied in part, a motion to dismiss filed by Dole and, in the process, dismissed 14 of the 22 plaintiffs on the ground that they had been named as plaintiffs in a prior action filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there was a question as to whether they were parties to the Louisiana case(s). On the question of cross-jurisdictional tolling (which had been raised in the motion), the court invited Dole to renew its motion to dismiss pending a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. As indicated below, the Fifth Circuit did render a decision on the appeal of the Hendler-Louisiana cases, and Dole has renewed its motion to dismiss Marquinez. With respect to the Marquinez matter, the company has filed an answer to the complaint, no discovery has commenced in this matter, 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 on either of these matters. Also on September 19, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granting summary judgment on the claims of 258 of the plaintiffs named in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. The appellate court found no basis for reversing the lower court dismissal which had been effected on the ground that claimants had not brought their actions within the applicable statute of limitations period. In a related matter, on October 16, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the order issued by the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware cases, in which the court dismissed the claims of 235 plaintiffs on the ground that the actions were already pending in Louisiana (as the Hendler-Louisiana cases) and, as such, were barred from adjudication before another court under the “first-to-file” rule. In effect, plaintiffs, whose claims were dismissed by the federal court in Louisiana (and which appeal was affirmed on appeal as per the previous paragraph) are attempting to keep those claims alive before the Delaware federal courts. The Company does not believe that there is any merit in the appeal and plans to oppose it vigorously. Accordingly, the Company has not set up a loss contingency on this matter. B. Other Matters Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the USEPA) served AMVAC Brazil (“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, for 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 B’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 during 2013. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss of between $200 and $300 is probable and has set up a loss contingency in the amount of $200.

12. Legal Proceedings—Summarized below are litigation matters in which there has been material activity or developments during the three month period ended September 30, 2013.

A. 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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 possible link between male fertility and exposure to DBCP among their factory production workers involved with 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 have been filed in Nicaragua. All of these actions are in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Following is a summary of material developments in these matters since the commencement of this reporting period. For the sake of brevity, we refer to cases by the names set forth in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, which sets forth the procedural history of these matters in greater detail.

Delaware and Louisiana Matters

On September 19, 2013, in Marquinez, (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 12-695-RGA involving claims for injury to 22 banana plantation workers allegedly caused by exposure to DBCP), the court granted in part, and denied in part, a motion to dismiss filed by Dole and, in the process, dismissed 14 of the 22 plaintiffs on the ground that they had been named as plaintiffs in a prior action filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there was a question as to whether they were parties to the Louisiana case(s). On the question of cross-jurisdictional tolling (which had been raised in the motion), the court invited Dole to renew its motion to dismiss pending a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. As indicated below, the Fifth Circuit did render a decision on the appeal of the Hendler-Louisiana cases, and Dole has renewed its motion to dismiss Marquinez. With respect to the Marquinez matter, the company has filed an answer to the complaint, no discovery has commenced in this matter, 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 on either of these matters.

Also on September 19, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granting summary judgment on the claims of 258 of the plaintiffs named in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. The appellate court found no basis for reversing the lower court dismissal which had been effected on the ground that claimants had not brought their actions within the applicable statute of limitations period.

In a related matter, on October 16, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the order issued by the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware cases, in which the court dismissed the claims of 235 plaintiffs on the ground that the actions were already pending in Louisiana (as the Hendler-Louisiana cases) and, as such, were barred from adjudication before another court under the “first-to-file” rule. In effect, plaintiffs, whose claims were dismissed by the federal court in Louisiana (and which appeal was affirmed on appeal as per the previous paragraph) are attempting to keep those claims alive before the Delaware federal courts. The Company does not believe that there is any merit in the appeal and plans to oppose it vigorously. Accordingly, the Company has not set up a loss contingency on this matter.

B. Other Matters

Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the USEPA) served AMVAC Brazil (“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, for 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 B’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 during 2013. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss of between $200 and $300 is probable and has set up a loss contingency in the amount of $200.