Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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: DBCP Matters – Delaware 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 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. Several cases involving 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama had been separately filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware in 2012 and subsequently consolidated into one matter (the “Hendler-Delaware Case”). These matters involved the same claimants and claims that had been filed in U.S. District Court in Louisiana within the prior year (and which we refer to as the Hendler-Louisiana Cases). 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 defendants’ 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 reheard the matter en banc on February 17, 2016. On September 2, 2016, the Third Circuit Court reversed the District Court decision, finding that it was not proper for the trial court to have dismissed these cases with prejudice even though the Louisiana courts had dismissed the same claims for expiration of the statute of limitations. In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit reasoned that no court had yet addressed the merits of the matter, that Delaware’s statute of limitations may differ from that of Louisiana, and that it would have been proper for the Delaware trial court to have dismissed the matter without prejudice (that is, with the right to amend and refile). Accordingly, the matter has been remanded to the U.S. District Court in Delaware. 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. Other Matters U.S. EPA RCRA/FIFRA Matter On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the 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 supposed 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 allegedly inconsistent with FIFRA. 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 eight amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company had adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the 2016 season. In the course of its investigation, the agency has also pointed out alleged anomalies relating to the Company’s confidential statements of formula relating to the use of certain inert materials in formulation. USEPA’s Region 5 has expressed its intention to bring an enforcement action relating to its overall findings. AMVAC believes that it has lawfully imported Thimet from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. Further, the Company believes that it has carried out its Thimet business in good faith, maintained a focus on product stewardship and, in the process, did not pose any increased risk of harm to human health or the environment. On October 11, 2016, the Company met with USEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance (as well as with Regions 4 and 5) to clarify a path forward to ensure future compliance. 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 discretionary bonus payments made to class members during the subject period allegedly 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. The Company has been in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel, but has been unable to reach a mutually agreeable position. Thus, the Company intends to continue to defend the matter. We believe that a loss is possible and reasonably estimable and have recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material to our financial statements. DeChene Farms The Company is investigating a potential claim by a Minnesota-based grower who is alleging that the in-furrow use of the Company’s insecticide, Mocap, resulted in delayed germination and subsequently diminished size of approximately 300 acres of red Norland potatoes. Such a result could mean that the subject potatoes could be graded lower than normal and could command a lower premium at market. The Company has retained two independent investigators and conducted its own investigation of the matter as to causation, but does not yet have any information regarding market conditions and crop valuation (the harvest just having been completed). Based upon our current understanding of the matter, we believe that a loss is possible and reasonably estimable and have recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material to our financial statements.

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:

DBCP Matters – Delaware

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 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.

Several cases involving 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama had been separately filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware in 2012 and subsequently consolidated into one matter (the “Hendler-Delaware Case”). These matters involved the same claimants and claims that had been filed in U.S. District Court in Louisiana within the prior year (and which we refer to as the Hendler-Louisiana Cases). 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 defendants’ 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 reheard the matter en banc on February 17, 2016.

On September 2, 2016, the Third Circuit Court reversed the District Court decision, finding that it was not proper for the trial court to have dismissed these cases with prejudice even though the Louisiana courts had dismissed the same claims for expiration of the statute of limitations. In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit reasoned that no court had yet addressed the merits of the matter, that Delaware’s statute of limitations may differ from that of Louisiana, and that it would have been proper for the Delaware trial court to have dismissed the matter without prejudice (that is, with the right to amend and refile). Accordingly, the matter has been remanded to the U.S. District Court in Delaware. 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.

Other Matters

U.S. EPA RCRA/FIFRA Matter On or about March 24, 2015, Region 4 of the 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 supposed 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 allegedly inconsistent with FIFRA. 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 eight amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company had adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the 2016 season.

In the course of its investigation, the agency has also pointed out alleged anomalies relating to the Company’s confidential statements of formula relating to the use of certain inert materials in formulation. USEPA’s Region 5 has expressed its intention to bring an enforcement action relating to its overall findings. AMVAC believes that it has lawfully imported Thimet from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. Further, the Company believes that it has carried out its Thimet business in good faith, maintained a focus on product stewardship and, in the process, did not pose any increased risk of harm to human health or the environment. On October 11, 2016, the Company met with USEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance (as well as with Regions 4 and 5) to clarify a path forward to ensure future compliance. 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 discretionary bonus payments made to class members during the subject period allegedly 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. The Company has been in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel, but has been unable to reach a mutually agreeable position. Thus, the Company intends to continue to defend the matter. We believe that a loss is possible and reasonably estimable and have recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material to our financial statements.

DeChene Farms The Company is investigating a potential claim by a Minnesota-based grower who is alleging that the in-furrow use of the Company’s insecticide, Mocap, resulted in delayed germination and subsequently diminished size of approximately 300 acres of red Norland potatoes. Such a result could mean that the subject potatoes could be graded lower than normal and could command a lower premium at market. The Company has retained two independent investigators and conducted its own investigation of the matter as to causation, but does not yet have any information regarding market conditions and crop valuation (the harvest just having been completed). Based upon our current understanding of the matter, we believe that a loss is possible and reasonably estimable and have recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that is not material to our financial statements.