Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Litigation and Environmental	(4) Litigation and Environmental A. 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 U.S. EPA to control nematodes. DBCP was also applied on banana farms in Latin America. The U.S. EPA suspended registrations of DBCP in October 1979, except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. The U.S. EPA 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. At present, there are four domestic lawsuits and approximately 85 Nicaraguan lawsuits, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Only two of the Nicaraguan actions have actually been served on AMVAC. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2014 is as follows: in Hawaii, Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al which had been dismissed in 2011 (for expiration of the statute of limitations), remains on appeal; and Adams, from which co-defendant Dole was dismissed, is on appeal with respect to such dismissal and, at any rate, involves claims that pre-dated AMVAC’s sales into the relevant market. All but two matters that had been pending in Louisiana and Delaware have been dismissed (and affirmed on appeal) based upon the applicable statutes of limitation. Two Delaware cases (Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) (involving claims brought on behalf of 2,700 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama) were dismissed on summary judgment (for expiration of the applicable statute of limitations) and are on appeal. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2014. Delaware Matters On May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USCD DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA) involving 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. Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-Castillo case on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been previously filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed (as they were named as plaintiffs in prior actions). As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there was a question as to whether they were parties to earlier cases in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted defendant Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitation had expired. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of all defendants (on the same grounds as the earlier motion) and the court entered final judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling, and, while the appeals court heard oral argument in December 2014, it has not yet issued its ruling. The company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters. Hawaiian Matters Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al In October 1997, AMVAC was served with two complaints 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 Company, et. al (“Patrickson Case”) alleging damages sustained from injuries (including sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs’ exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly so exposed in these four countries. 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. 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 appellate court heard oral argument on the appeal in September 2014 but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. Adams v. Dole Food Company et al On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging that they had testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Company et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical 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 Company was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation benefits, as it was the employer of plaintiffs. In October 2014, the appellate court upheld the dismissal but granted plaintiffs the right to amend its complaint. However, in light of the fact that Plaintiffs’ request (made in November 2012) to substitute new counsel was denied, until new counsel is properly substituted, Plaintiffs cannot proceed further with the matter. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. Nicaraguan Matters A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, has found 85 suits alleging personal injury allegedly due to exposure to DBCP and involving approximately 3,592 plaintiffs have been filed against AMVAC and other parties. Of these cases, only two— 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. 679/04Castillo and Suazo, (which were filed in 2004 and involve 15 banana workers) 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 Company 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 has objected to personal jurisdiction and demanded under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. In 2007, the court denied these objections, and AMVAC appealed the denial. 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. Further, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. Nor have Nicaraguan claimants had success in bringing actions domestically, as one U.S. court has dismissed such an action on its own motion after finding pervasive fraud on behalf of claimants and their counsel. With respect to the pending Nicaraguan matters, AMVAC intends to defend any claim vigorously. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters. B. Other Matters Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the U.S. EPA) served AMVAC Brazil 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. IBAMA has denied AMVAC B’s first and second appeals. Accordingly, on November 20, 2014, the Company paid $168 in full settlement of this matter. Thus, this matter is concluded. Sanchez v. Agro Logistics. AMVAC has been named as one of 27 defendants in an action entitled Sanchez v. Agro Logistic Systems, Inc. et al which was filed on April 14, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles as case number BC542612. In this matter, two individuals seek unspecified damages from defendants for negligence, strict liability and other causes of action allegedly leading to physical injury (myelogenous leukemia) arising from exposure to dozens of registered products over the course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012. We believe that the claims have no merit, intend to defend the matter vigorously, and has entered into a joint defense arrangement with certain other defendants. A fair amount of discovery, including plaintiff’s deposition, has been completed. Plaintiffs are unable to confirm whether they used or were exposed to any of the Company’s products. The Company will continue to defend this matter and does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter. Galvan v. AMVAC. On April 7, 2014, an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. was filed with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC. This is a putative class action brought under California Labor Code Section 2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee currently on leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “similarly aggrieved employees” under various Labor Code sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal periods, and rest periods among other things. The Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Limited discovery has taken place since the filing of the action; however, the deposition of plaintiff has yet to be taken. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for the matter.

(4) Litigation and Environmental

A. 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 U.S. EPA to control nematodes. DBCP was also applied on banana farms in Latin America. The U.S. EPA suspended registrations of DBCP in October 1979, except for use on pineapples in Hawaii. The U.S. EPA 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.

At present, there are four domestic lawsuits and approximately 85 Nicaraguan lawsuits, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Only two of the Nicaraguan actions have actually been served on AMVAC.

As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2014 is as follows: in Hawaii, Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al which had been dismissed in 2011 (for expiration of the statute of limitations), remains on appeal; and Adams, from which co-defendant Dole was dismissed, is on appeal with respect to such dismissal and, at any rate, involves claims that pre-dated AMVAC’s sales into the relevant market. All but two matters that had been pending in Louisiana and Delaware have been dismissed (and affirmed on appeal) based upon the applicable statutes of limitation. Two Delaware cases (Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) (involving claims brought on behalf of 2,700 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama) were dismissed on summary judgment (for expiration of the applicable statute of limitations) and are on appeal. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2014.

Delaware Matters

On May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USCD DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA) involving 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. Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-Castillo case on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been previously filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed (as they were named as plaintiffs in prior actions). As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there was a question as to whether they were parties to earlier cases in Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted defendant Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the grounds that the applicable statutes of limitation had expired. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of all defendants (on the same grounds as the earlier motion) and the court entered final judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling, and, while the appeals court heard oral argument in December 2014, it has not yet issued its ruling. The company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters.

Hawaiian Matters

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

In October 1997, AMVAC was served with two complaints 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 Company, et. al (“Patrickson Case”) alleging damages sustained from injuries (including sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs’ exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly so exposed in these four countries.

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. 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 appellate court heard oral argument on the appeal in September 2014 but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

Adams v. Dole Food Company et al

On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging that they had testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Company et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical 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 Company was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation benefits, as it was the employer of plaintiffs. In October 2014, the appellate court upheld the dismissal but granted plaintiffs the right to amend its complaint. However, in light of the fact that Plaintiffs’ request (made in November 2012) to substitute new counsel was denied, until new counsel is properly substituted, Plaintiffs cannot proceed further with the matter. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

Nicaraguan Matters

A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, has found 85 suits alleging personal injury allegedly due to exposure to DBCP and involving approximately 3,592 plaintiffs have been filed against AMVAC and other parties. Of these cases, only two— 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. 679/04Castillo and Suazo, (which were filed in 2004 and involve 15 banana workers) 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 Company 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 has objected to personal jurisdiction and demanded under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. In 2007, the court denied these objections, and AMVAC appealed the denial. 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. Further, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. Nor have Nicaraguan claimants had success in bringing actions domestically, as one U.S. court has dismissed such an action on its own motion after finding pervasive fraud on behalf of claimants and their counsel. With respect to the pending Nicaraguan matters, AMVAC intends to defend any claim vigorously. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters.

B. Other Matters

Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the U.S. EPA) served AMVAC Brazil 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. IBAMA has denied AMVAC B’s first and second appeals. Accordingly, on November 20, 2014, the Company paid $168 in full settlement of this matter. Thus, this matter is concluded.

Sanchez v. Agro Logistics. AMVAC has been named as one of 27 defendants in an action entitled Sanchez v. Agro Logistic Systems, Inc. et al which was filed on April 14, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles as case number BC542612. In this matter, two individuals seek unspecified damages from defendants for negligence, strict liability and other causes of action allegedly leading to physical injury (myelogenous leukemia) arising from exposure to dozens of registered products over the course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012. We believe that the claims have no merit, intend to defend the matter vigorously, and has entered into a joint defense arrangement with certain other defendants. A fair amount of discovery, including plaintiff’s deposition, has been completed. Plaintiffs are unable to confirm whether they used or were exposed to any of the Company’s products. The Company will continue to defend this matter and does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter.

Galvan v. AMVAC. On April 7, 2014, an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. was filed with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC. This is a putative class action brought under California Labor Code Section 2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee currently on leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly “similarly aggrieved employees” under various Labor Code sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal periods, and rest periods among other things. The Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Limited discovery has taken place since the filing of the action; however, the deposition of plaintiff has yet to be taken. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for the matter.