Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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 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. 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 2016 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), was appealed and, upon the appellate court’s adoption of cross-jurisdictional tolling, remanded to the trial court for adjudication; 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. The pending Delaware matters are more fully described below. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2016. Delaware Matter On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-C.V.-00695-LPS) 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 Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court determined that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, at this stage, only 57 plaintiffs remain in the action. We expect that the appellate court will schedule oral argument by March 2017 and may issue a decision by July 2017. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter. On or about May 31, 2012, HendlerLaw, P.C. filed several actions involving claims for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf of 230 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama. Defendant Dole subsequently brought a motion to dismiss these matters under the “first-to-file” theory of jurisdiction, specifically in light of the fact that they involved identical claims and claimants as matters that had been brought by the same law firm in Louisiana. 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. However, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and 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. 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. The court of appeals subsequently remanded the matter to the lower court in February 2014, effectively permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to circumvent the workers’ compensation bar. 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 million in compensatory damages and $5 million 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 USEPA 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 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 allegedly inconsistent with FIFRA and RCRA. 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 nine amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company believes that it will have adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the foreseeable future. AMVAC believes that it has lawfully imported used Thimet containers from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. Further, the Company believes that it has it has carried out its Thimet business in good faith, maintained a focus on product stewardship and not posed any increased risk of harm to human health or the environment. Nevertheless, USEPA’s Region 5 has expressed its intention to bring a civil enforcement action relating to its overall findings. 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, on November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which both the Environmental Crimes Section (“ECS”) of USEPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) are seeking the production of documents relating to the re-importation of depleted Thimet containers. The Company has retained defense counsel and is cooperating with both ECS and DoJ in the production. At this stage, the company has not yet received a final position from USEPA with regard to civil enforcement, nor have ECS and DoJ made clear their intentions with regard to any potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss on either front is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters. 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 completed the deposition of putative class representative 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. Nevertheless, in the interest of saving defense costs and mitigating downside risk, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel over the course of several months. The proposed settlement is not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The terms of the settlement are subject to approval by the presiding judge in the action. If approved by the judge, the matter should be dismissed with prejudice within six to nine months. DeChene Farms The Company received a claim by a Minnesota-based grower to the effect that the in-furrow use of the Company’s insecticide, Mocap^®, resulted in delayed germination and resulting diminished size of approximately 300 acres of red Norland potatoes. Based upon its then-current understanding of the claim, during third quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that was not material to its consolidated financial statements. Subsequently, the Company retained two independent investigators and conducted its own investigation of the matter as to causation. Further, we received information regarding market conditions and crop valuation from the grower, who alleged that he had received a lower price per pound for his crop. The Company held negotiations with grower and, in December 2016, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The settlement was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs Harold Reed (“Reed,”), an applicator, and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (“Jem”), an application equipment rental company, allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta, on April 2, 2014. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Amvac was negligent and failed to warn them of the risks of such application. Reed seeks damages of $250K for pain and suffering, while Jem seeks $60K in lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, counsel for Reed requested that counsel for the Company accept service of four related actions relating to the same incident and pending with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400K for loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530K for loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4.3 million). The Company was not named in the original complaints in these four actions but has since been added in cross-claims by defendant Reed. In his cross claims, Reed also alleges that other cross-defendants were negligent for using highly flammable insulation and failing to maintain sparking electrical fixtures in the storage units affected by the fire. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ and cross-plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

(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 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.

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 2016 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), was appealed and, upon the appellate court’s adoption of cross-jurisdictional tolling, remanded to the trial court for adjudication; 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. The pending Delaware matters are more fully described below. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2016.

Delaware Matter

On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-C.V.-00695-LPS) 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 Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court determined that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, at this stage, only 57 plaintiffs remain in the action. We expect that the appellate court will schedule oral argument by March 2017 and may issue a decision by July 2017. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter.

On or about May 31, 2012, HendlerLaw, P.C. filed several actions involving claims for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf of 230 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama. Defendant Dole subsequently brought a motion to dismiss these matters under the “first-to-file” theory of jurisdiction, specifically in light of the fact that they involved identical claims and claimants as matters that had been brought by the same law firm in Louisiana. 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. However, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and 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.

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. The court of appeals subsequently remanded the matter to the lower court in February 2014, effectively permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint to circumvent the workers’ compensation bar. 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 million in compensatory damages and $5 million 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

USEPA 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 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 allegedly inconsistent with FIFRA and RCRA. 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 nine amendments. As a consequence of this relief, the Company believes that it will have adequate inventory to meet customers’ needs for the foreseeable future.

AMVAC believes that it has lawfully imported used Thimet containers from Canada and Australia for the purpose of potentially refilling, reprocessing or properly disposing of them. Further, the Company believes that it has it has carried out its Thimet business in good faith, maintained a focus on product stewardship and not posed any increased risk of harm to human health or the environment. Nevertheless, USEPA’s Region 5 has expressed its intention to bring a civil enforcement action relating to its overall findings. 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, on November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which both the Environmental Crimes Section (“ECS”) of USEPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) are seeking the production of documents relating to the re-importation of depleted Thimet containers. The Company has retained defense counsel and is cooperating with both ECS and DoJ in the production. At this stage, the company has not yet received a final position from USEPA with regard to civil enforcement, nor have ECS and DoJ made clear their intentions with regard to any potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss on either front is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on these matters.

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 completed the deposition of putative class representative 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. Nevertheless, in the interest of saving defense costs and mitigating downside risk, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel over the course of several months. The proposed settlement is not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The terms of the settlement are subject to approval by the presiding judge in the action. If approved by the judge, the matter should be dismissed with prejudice within six to nine months.

DeChene Farms The Company received a claim by a Minnesota-based grower to the effect that the in-furrow use of the Company’s insecticide, Mocap^®, resulted in delayed germination and resulting diminished size of approximately 300 acres of red Norland potatoes. Based upon its then-current understanding of the claim, during third quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss contingency for the matter in an amount that was not material to its consolidated financial statements. Subsequently, the Company retained two independent investigators and conducted its own investigation of the matter as to causation. Further, we received information regarding market conditions and crop valuation from the grower, who alleged that he had received a lower price per pound for his crop. The Company held negotiations with grower and, in December 2016, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The settlement was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs Harold Reed (“Reed,”), an applicator, and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (“Jem”), an application equipment rental company, allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta, on April 2, 2014. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Amvac was negligent and failed to warn them of the risks of such application. Reed seeks damages of $250K for pain and suffering, while Jem seeks $60K in lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, counsel for Reed requested that counsel for the Company accept service of four related actions relating to the same incident and pending with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400K for loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530K for loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4.3 million). The Company was not named in the original complaints in these four actions but has since been added in cross-claims by defendant Reed. In his cross claims, Reed also alleges that other cross-defendants were negligent for using highly flammable insulation and failing to maintain sparking electrical fixtures in the storage units affected by the fire. The Company believes that plaintiffs’ and cross-plaintiffs’ claims against it are without merit and intends to defend these matters vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.