Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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. That 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. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2017. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2017 is as follows. The one case remaining in Delaware includes 57 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; this matter has been stayed pending a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when or if the statute of limitations has run out. In Hawaii, in the matter of Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, following the appellate court’s remand to the trial court for adjudication in 2016, there has been no activity; while in Adams, there has been no activity since 2014, when the court granted dismissal of co-defendant Dole on the basis of a worker’s compensation bar and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint in light of that ruling. 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 et al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC et al., No. 679/04 (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. Delaware DBCP Cases Abad Castillo and Marquinez. 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-CV-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 granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding 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. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the tolling period ended. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2018 and is expected to issue a ruling within 90 days. During the pendency of this question, these matters will be effectively stayed. At any rate, the Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency. Hawaiian DBCP 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 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; the action is captioned 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. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. B. Other Matters 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 has substantially completed the production during the course of which it incurred approximately $2,350 in legal costs and fees responding to this subpoena. During the third quarter of 2017, 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 second quarter of 2018. At this stage, DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal or civil 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. Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. AMVAC (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. The District Court in Tennessee has yet to rule on the motion. 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. 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 pain and suffering, while Jem Holdings seeks $60 in 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 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 $530 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 $4,300). The Company was subsequently named as cross-defendant in those actions by Reed. During the third quarter of 2017, 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. Galvan v. AMVAC In an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC 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, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel over the course of several months. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss contingency to cover the estimated amount of settlement. During December 2016, the parties reached agreement on terms of settlement, and, on February 9, 2018, the court gave its final approval to the terms of the class settlement. The settlement was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the Company is to provide the court with a report of administration of the settlement proceeds to the class in August 2018, after which the Company expects that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

(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. That 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. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2017. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2017 is as follows. The one case remaining in Delaware includes 57 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; this matter has been stayed pending a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when or if the statute of limitations has run out. In Hawaii, in the matter of Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, following the appellate court’s remand to the trial court for adjudication in 2016, there has been no activity; while in Adams, there has been no activity since 2014, when the court granted dismissal of co-defendant Dole on the basis of a worker’s compensation bar and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint in light of that ruling.

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 et al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC et al., No. 679/04 (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.

Delaware DBCP Cases

Abad Castillo and Marquinez. 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-CV-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 granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding 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. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the tolling period ended. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2018 and is expected to issue a ruling within 90 days. During the pendency of this question, these matters will be effectively stayed. At any rate, the Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency.

Hawaiian DBCP 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 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; the action is captioned 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. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

B. Other Matters

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 has substantially completed the production during the course of which it incurred approximately $2,350 in legal costs and fees responding to this subpoena. During the third quarter of 2017, 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 second quarter of 2018. At this stage, DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal or civil 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.

Walker v. AMVAC. On or about April 10, 2017, the Company was served with a summons and complaint that had been filed with the United State District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under the caption Larry L. Walker v. AMVAC (as No. 4:17-cv-00017). Plaintiff seeks contract damages, correction of inventorship, accounting and injunctive relief arising from for the Company’s alleged misuse of his confidential information to support a patent application (which was subsequently issued) for a post-harvest corn herbicide that the Company has not commercialized. Plaintiff claims further that he, not the Company, should be identified as the inventor in such application. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend vigorously. On May 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, for transfer of venue, on the ground that (i) the complaint fails to state claim upon which relief can be granted, (ii) the contracts cited by plaintiff in his complaint include a forum selection clause requiring that disputes are to be adjudicated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and (iii) the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. The District Court in Tennessee has yet to rule on the motion. 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.

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 pain and suffering, while Jem Holdings seeks $60 in 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 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 $530 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 $4,300). The Company was subsequently named as cross-defendant in those actions by Reed. During the third quarter of 2017, 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.

Galvan v. AMVAC In an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC 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, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with plaintiff’s counsel over the course of several months. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a loss contingency to cover the estimated amount of settlement. During December 2016, the parties reached agreement on terms of settlement, and, on February 9, 2018, the court gave its final approval to the terms of the class settlement. The settlement was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the Company is to provide the court with a report of administration of the settlement proceeds to the class in August 2018, after which the Company expects that the matter will be dismissed with prejudice.