Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
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, 2015, other than as discussed below: U.S. EPA RCRA/FIFRA 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, an Opportunity to Show Cause (“OSC”) 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. The scope of these discussions subsequently expanded to involve USEPA Region 5 and to include the importation of depleted Lock ‘N Load containers from Australia in October 2015 and full Lock ‘N Load containers from Canada in January 2016. On or about March 25, 2016, USEPA Region 5 issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (“SSURO”) ordering AMVAC to cease the distribution or sale of US Thimet 20G, Canadian Thimet 15G and Australian Thimet 200G on the grounds that the importation of both depleted and full containers of Thimet and the subsequent use of their contents was inconsistent with FIFRA. AMVAC disagrees with this position and believes that it lawfully imported Thimet from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. After hosting a plant inspection by Regions 4 and 5 and providing documentation to the agency, AMVAC requested and received relief from the SSURO in the form of seven amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company believes that it will have adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the 2016 season. However, the Company has not yet received a final position from USEPA with regard to past acts, and, at this stage, it is too early to tell whether a loss arising from either the OSC or SSURO is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company 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 several violations of wages and hours requirements under the California Labor Code. The Company completed the deposition of plaintiff and participated in mediation on the matter. In February 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to only one of the seven original claims (namely, that allegedly discretionary bonus payments made to class members during the subject period should have been taken into account when calculating overtime). The Company believes that such bonus payments were discretionary and, as such, were properly excluded from overtime calculations. Thus, the Company intends to defend the matter. 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 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. After meeting in both November 2015 and February 2016 to mediate the matter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement effective as of April 30, 2016, under the terms of which claimant released the Company from these claims in exchange for payment of cash, which was in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial statements. 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. After having investigated the matter fully and engaging in settlement discussions with claimant over the course of several months, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated April 25, 2016, under the terms of which claimants agreed to release the Company from these claims in exchange for provision of product to claimants over the next three planting seasons. The total value of the settlement is not material to the Company’s financial statements. Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al. During the reporting period, the Company was notified of the fact that a Statement of Claim had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case number 160600211) in which plaintiff, an applicator of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, alleges that he incurred physical injury arising from a fire that occurred during his application of that product at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta on April 2, 2014 and that AMVAC failed to warn him of the risks of such application. AMVAC has not yet been served in the action. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. 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 loss contingency.

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, 2015, other than as discussed below:

U.S. EPA RCRA/FIFRA 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, an Opportunity to Show Cause (“OSC”) 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. The scope of these discussions subsequently expanded to involve USEPA Region 5 and to include the importation of depleted Lock ‘N Load containers from Australia in October 2015 and full Lock ‘N Load containers from Canada in January 2016. On or about March 25, 2016, USEPA Region 5 issued a Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order (“SSURO”) ordering AMVAC to cease the distribution or sale of US Thimet 20G, Canadian Thimet 15G and Australian Thimet 200G on the grounds that the importation of both depleted and full containers of Thimet and the subsequent use of their contents was inconsistent with FIFRA. AMVAC disagrees with this position and believes that it lawfully imported Thimet from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. After hosting a plant inspection by Regions 4 and 5 and providing documentation to the agency, AMVAC requested and received relief from the SSURO in the form of seven amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company believes that it will have adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the 2016 season. However, the Company has not yet received a final position from USEPA with regard to past acts, and, at this stage, it is too early to tell whether a loss arising from either the OSC or SSURO is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company 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 several violations of wages and hours requirements under the California Labor Code. The Company completed the deposition of plaintiff and participated in mediation on the matter. In February 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification with respect to only one of the seven original claims (namely, that allegedly discretionary bonus payments made to class members during the subject period should have been taken into account when calculating overtime). The Company believes that such bonus payments were discretionary and, as such, were properly excluded from overtime calculations. Thus, the Company intends to defend the matter. 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 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. After meeting in both November 2015 and February 2016 to mediate the matter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement effective as of April 30, 2016, under the terms of which claimant released the Company from these claims in exchange for payment of cash, which was in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial statements.

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. After having investigated the matter fully and engaging in settlement discussions with claimant over the course of several months, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated April 25, 2016, under the terms of which claimants agreed to release the Company from these claims in exchange for provision of product to claimants over the next three planting seasons. The total value of the settlement is not material to the Company’s financial statements.

Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al. During the reporting period, the Company was notified of the fact that a Statement of Claim had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case number 160600211) in which plaintiff, an applicator of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, alleges that he incurred physical injury arising from a fire that occurred during his application of that product at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta on April 2, 2014 and that AMVAC failed to warn him of the risks of such application. AMVAC has not yet been served in the action. The Company believes that plaintiff’s claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. 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 loss contingency.