Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
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 three 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 2015 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 one matter that had been pending in Louisiana and Delaware have been dismissed (and affirmed on appeal) based upon the applicable statutes of limitation. The pending Delaware matter is more fully described below. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2015. Delaware Matter On or about May 31, 2012, HendlerLaw, P.C., which represents plaintiffs in seven related matters that had been 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 (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). 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 involved identical claims and claimants as those appearing in the Hendler – Louisiana cases. These Delaware matters have been consolidated into one matter (the “Hendler-Delaware Case”). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware case granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the actions with prejudice, finding that the same claimants and claims had been pending in the Hendler-Louisiana cases where they had been first filed. In October 2012, the federal district court in Louisiana granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Hendler-Louisiana Cases for plaintiffs’ failure to bring the action within the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Hendler-Louisiana cases and, on September 19, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, finding no reason to reverse the dismissal. On October 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Hendler-Delaware case. Oral argument was heard before the Third Circuit Court of Appeal on June 24, 2014 in connection with that appeal, and, on August 11, 2015, the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the Hendler-Delaware case. However, plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that, despite the fact that the same plaintiffs had made the same claims before another court (namely, the Louisiana court in the Hendler-Louisiana cases), because the Louisiana court had not decided the case on the merits (but, rather, on the basis of the statute of limitations), the Delaware trial court lacked the power to dismiss the Hendler-Delaware case with prejudice. On September 22, 2015, the Third Circuit vacated its previous ruling (to uphold the lower court dismissal) and the appeal was reheard en banc on February 17, 2016. The Company expects that a decision will be issued in 9 to 12 months. The Company believes the Hendler-Delaware case has no merit and, further, that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable; accordingly, it has not recorded a loss contingency. 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 Hawai’i and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai’i (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. After several years of law and motion activity, the court granted judgment in favor of the defendants based upon the statute of limitations on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On April 8, 2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new counsel. On October 21, 2015, the Hawai’i Supreme Court granted the appeal and overturned the lower court decision, ruling that the State of Hawai’i now recognizes cross-jurisdictional tolling, that plaintiffs filed their complaint within the applicable statute of limitations and that the matter is to be remanded to the lower court for further adjudication. No discovery has taken place in this matter, and, at this stage in the proceedings, 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. Plaintiff alleges that they were exposed to DBCP between 1971 and 1975. AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Following the dismissal of Dole Food Company on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation benefits, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. That appeal has been pending since 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel petitioned the court for substitution of counsel, but was denied on November 14, 2012. There has been no activity in the case since that time, and there is no estimated date of opinion. 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. 679/04 Castillo 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. With respect to these 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 U.S. EPA RCRA Matter On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the U.S. EPA issued to registrant’s principal operating subsidiary, AMVAC, an Opportunity to Show Cause why U.S. EPA 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 FIFRA 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 U.S. EPA 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. U.S. EPA RMP Matter On October 28 2015, Region 4 of the U.S. EPA provided AMVAC with notice of potential violations under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act relating to the Company’s risk management program (“RMP”) at the its Axis, Alabama manufacturing facility. The notice arose from an inspection of the subject facility conducted by a U.S. EPA consultant on August 6, 2014 and cited several potential violations relating largely to processes, documentation and training. The potential violations could carry civil, administrative or criminal penalties under applicable law. The Company has investigated the matters cited in the notice, and has established a timeline for furnishing a formal response and otherwise meeting with the agency. At this stage, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, registrant has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter. Galvan v. AMVAC In an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. filed on April 7, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange (No. 00716103CXC) plaintiff, a former employee, alleges violations of wages and hours requirements under the California Labor Code. The Company has completed the deposition of putative class representative and participated in mediation on the matter. The Company continues to believe that all of the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter. Navarro v. AMVAC On May 28, 2015, former employee, Silvano Navarro (who abandoned his position after electing not to take a leave of absence under FMLA) delivered a written claim to the Company in which he alleged that he was damaged due to discrimination for disability and a host of other labor and employment charges. Subsequently, the unemployment compensation board (in an unrelated proceeding) ruled against awarding Mr. Navarro unemployment compensation, finding that he had left his position of his own choice, that the Company had offered him a leave of absence and that, even after his departure, his managers tried to get him to return to work. The parties met in November 2015 to mediate the matter and discontinued the mediation in order to complete further internal investigation. The Company believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material. Schiemer Farms v. AMVAC 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. The parties have been in settlement discussions for the past few months. Based upon its understanding of the facts at this stage, the Company believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material. Walker v. AMVAC On or about May 9, 2015, former consultant, Larry Walker, made a written claim against the Company for alleged breach of contract and patent infringement arising from the Company’s having obtained a patent (US PTO 8,921,270) for use of the compound ametryn as a standalone burndown herbicide on corn. Mr. Walker alleges, among other things, that he invented the claims set forth in that patent. The Company believes that Mr. Walker’s allegations have no merit and that its own scientists invented the patented method. At this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency 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 three 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 2015 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 one matter that had been pending in Louisiana and Delaware have been dismissed (and affirmed on appeal) based upon the applicable statutes of limitation. The pending Delaware matter is more fully described below. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2015.

Delaware Matter

On or about May 31, 2012, HendlerLaw, P.C., which represents plaintiffs in seven related matters that had been 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 (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). 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 involved identical claims and claimants as those appearing in the Hendler – Louisiana cases. These Delaware matters have been consolidated into one matter (the “Hendler-Delaware Case”). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware case granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the actions with prejudice, finding that the same claimants and claims had been pending in the Hendler-Louisiana cases where they had been first filed.

In October 2012, the federal district court in Louisiana granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Hendler-Louisiana Cases for plaintiffs’ failure to bring the action within the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Hendler-Louisiana cases and, on September 19, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, finding no reason to reverse the dismissal.

On October 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Hendler-Delaware case. Oral argument was heard before the Third Circuit Court of Appeal on June 24, 2014 in connection with that appeal, and, on August 11, 2015, the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the Hendler-Delaware case. However, plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that, despite the fact that the same plaintiffs had made the same claims before another court (namely, the Louisiana court in the Hendler-Louisiana cases), because the Louisiana court had not decided the case on the merits (but, rather, on the basis of the statute of limitations), the Delaware trial court lacked the power to dismiss the Hendler-Delaware case with prejudice. On September 22, 2015, the Third Circuit vacated its previous ruling (to uphold the lower court dismissal) and the appeal was reheard en banc on February 17, 2016. The Company expects that a decision will be issued in 9 to 12 months. The Company believes the Hendler-Delaware case has no merit and, further, that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable; accordingly, it has not recorded a loss contingency.

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 Hawai’i and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai’i (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. After several years of law and motion activity, the court granted judgment in favor of the defendants based upon the statute of limitations on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On April 8, 2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new counsel. On October 21, 2015, the Hawai’i Supreme Court granted the appeal and overturned the lower court decision, ruling that the State of Hawai’i now recognizes cross-jurisdictional tolling, that plaintiffs filed their complaint within the applicable statute of limitations and that the matter is to be remanded to the lower court for further adjudication. No discovery has taken place in this matter, and, at this stage in the proceedings, 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. Plaintiff alleges that they were exposed to DBCP between 1971 and 1975. AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Following the dismissal of Dole Food Company on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation benefits, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. That appeal has been pending since 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel petitioned the court for substitution of counsel, but was denied on November 14, 2012. There has been no activity in the case since that time, and there is no estimated date of opinion. 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. 679/04 Castillo 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. With respect to these 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

U.S. EPA RCRA Matter On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the U.S. EPA issued to registrant’s principal operating subsidiary, AMVAC, an Opportunity to Show Cause why U.S. EPA 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 FIFRA 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 U.S. EPA 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.

U.S. EPA RMP Matter On October 28 2015, Region 4 of the U.S. EPA provided AMVAC with notice of potential violations under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act relating to the Company’s risk management program (“RMP”) at the its Axis, Alabama manufacturing facility. The notice arose from an inspection of the subject facility conducted by a U.S. EPA consultant on August 6, 2014 and cited several potential violations relating largely to processes, documentation and training. The potential violations could carry civil, administrative or criminal penalties under applicable law. The Company has investigated the matters cited in the notice, and has established a timeline for furnishing a formal response and otherwise meeting with the agency. At this stage, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, registrant has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter.

Galvan v. AMVAC In an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. filed on April 7, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange (No. 00716103CXC) plaintiff, a former employee, alleges violations of wages and hours requirements under the California Labor Code. The Company has completed the deposition of putative class representative and participated in mediation on the matter. The Company continues to believe that all of the claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter.

Navarro v. AMVAC On May 28, 2015, former employee, Silvano Navarro (who abandoned his position after electing not to take a leave of absence under FMLA) delivered a written claim to the Company in which he alleged that he was damaged due to discrimination for disability and a host of other labor and employment charges. Subsequently, the unemployment compensation board (in an unrelated proceeding) ruled against awarding Mr. Navarro unemployment compensation, finding that he had left his position of his own choice, that the Company had offered him a leave of absence and that, even after his departure, his managers tried to get him to return to work. The parties met in November 2015 to mediate the matter and discontinued the mediation in order to complete further internal investigation. The Company believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material.

Schiemer Farms v. AMVAC 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. The parties have been in settlement discussions for the past few months. Based upon its understanding of the facts at this stage, the Company believes that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material.

Walker v. AMVAC On or about May 9, 2015, former consultant, Larry Walker, made a written claim against the Company for alleged breach of contract and patent infringement arising from the Company’s having obtained a patent (US PTO 8,921,270) for use of the compound ametryn as a standalone burndown herbicide on corn. Mr. Walker alleges, among other things, that he invented the claims set forth in that patent. The Company believes that Mr. Walker’s allegations have no merit and that its own scientists invented the patented method. At this stage, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter.