Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that are pending or threatened against the Company, except as described below. EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. 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 the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) sought production of documents relating to the Company’s reimportation of depleted Thimet containers from Canada and Australia. The Company has retained defense counsel and during 2017 year to date has substantially completed the production. During the third quarter, the Company received a request from DoJ to interview several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. Those interviews are likely to take place during the fourth quarter. At this stage, DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter. 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 (an applicator) and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (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 $250 for alleged pain and suffering, while Jem Holdings seeks $60 in alleged lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, the Company received notice that four related actions relating to the same incident were filed with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400 for alleged loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for alleged lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530 for alleged loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for alleged lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4,300). The Company was subsequently named as cross-defendant in those actions by Reed. During the third quarter, counsel for the Company filed a Statement of Defence (the Canadian equivalent of an answer), alleging that Reed was negligent in his application of the product and that the 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 the claims against it in these matters are without merit and intends to defend them 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.

12. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that are pending or threatened against the Company, except as described below.

EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. 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 the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) sought production of documents relating to the Company’s reimportation of depleted Thimet containers from Canada and Australia. The Company has retained defense counsel and during 2017 year to date has substantially completed the production. During the third quarter, the Company received a request from DoJ to interview several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. Those interviews are likely to take place during the fourth quarter. At this stage, DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on this matter.

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 (an applicator) and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (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 $250 for alleged pain and suffering, while Jem Holdings seeks $60 in alleged lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well. Also during January 2017, the Company received notice that four related actions relating to the same incident were filed with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400 for alleged loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for alleged lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530 for alleged loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for alleged lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4,300). The Company was subsequently named as cross-defendant in those actions by Reed. During the third quarter, counsel for the Company filed a Statement of Defence (the Canadian equivalent of an answer), alleging that Reed was negligent in his application of the product and that the 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 the claims against it in these matters are without merit and intends to defend them 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.