Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal proceedings—During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in the legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014, other than as discussed below: 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, from the multiple manufacturers, over the course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012. 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 intends to defend the matter vigorously, believes that the claims have no merit, and has entered into a joint defense arrangement with certain other defendants. 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 loss contingency 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. After having taken discovery against plaintiff, the Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter. USEPA RCRA Matter. On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued to registrant’s principal operating subsidiary (AMVAC Chemical Corporation) an Opportunity to Show Cause why USEPA should not take formal action under Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for potential noncompliance arising from AMVAC’s importation, transportation and storage of used, depleted Lock‘N Load containers having residual amounts of its product Thimet. AMVAC believes that these containers were properly handled and stored under, among others, the applicable provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act relating to recycling and disposal of depleted, refillable containers (and their contents). AMVAC responded to the substance of the show cause letter on April 10, 2015 and has engaged in multiple discussions with USEPA on the matter. While violations of RCRA, if any, may carry civil penalties, it is too early in the matter to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, registrant has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter. USEPA TSCA Matter. On or about May 13, 2015, Region 9 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a notice of violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) in which it alleged that the Company had failed to submit a Form U to the agency during the 2012 submission period for four chemical substances imported for commercial purposes at two of its facilities. The Company responded to the allegations by not only providing documentation but also filing the subject Form U. After discussion with USEPA regarding mitigation measures, the parties agreed to a civil penalty in the amount of $81. We expect that settlement documents will be completed in the near term. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $81. Schiemer Farms Matter. On or about May 12, 2015, Farmers Supply Co-op made a written claim against the Company for losses from the alleged failure of the Company’s soil fumigant, Vapam, to control weeds on an onion crop that was harvested in late 2014. The grower alleges a loss of yield in the amount of $1.2 million. The Company has been in informal discussion with claimant (which applied the product) and grower and does not believe that claimant is entitled to the relief that it seeks. Based upon its understanding of the facts at this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency on the matter.

12. Legal proceedings—During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in the legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014, other than as discussed below:

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, from the multiple manufacturers, over the course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012. 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 intends to defend the matter vigorously, believes that the claims have no merit, and has entered into a joint defense arrangement with certain other defendants. 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 loss contingency 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. After having taken discovery against plaintiff, the Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter.

USEPA RCRA Matter. On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued to registrant’s principal operating subsidiary (AMVAC Chemical Corporation) an Opportunity to Show Cause why USEPA should not take formal action under Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for potential noncompliance arising from AMVAC’s importation, transportation and storage of used, depleted Lock‘N Load containers having residual amounts of its product Thimet. AMVAC believes that these containers were properly handled and stored under, among others, the applicable provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act relating to recycling and disposal of depleted, refillable containers (and their contents). AMVAC responded to the substance of the show cause letter on April 10, 2015 and has engaged in multiple discussions with USEPA on the matter. While violations of RCRA, if any, may carry civil penalties, it is too early in the matter to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, registrant has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter.

USEPA TSCA Matter. On or about May 13, 2015, Region 9 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a notice of violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) in which it alleged that the Company had failed to submit a Form U to the agency during the 2012 submission period for four chemical substances imported for commercial purposes at two of its facilities. The Company responded to the allegations by not only providing documentation but also filing the subject Form U. After discussion with USEPA regarding mitigation measures, the parties agreed to a civil penalty in the amount of $81. We expect that settlement documents will be completed in the near term. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a loss contingency in the amount of $81.

Schiemer Farms Matter. On or about May 12, 2015, Farmers Supply Co-op made a written claim against the Company for losses from the alleged failure of the Company’s soil fumigant, Vapam, to control weeds on an onion crop that was harvested in late 2014. The grower alleges a loss of yield in the amount of $1.2 million. The Company has been in informal discussion with claimant (which applied the product) and grower and does not believe that claimant is entitled to the relief that it seeks. Based upon its understanding of the facts at this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency on the matter.