Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	13. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, except as described below. 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 held 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, 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, on March 15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that federal court dismissal in 1995 on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not end class action tolling, and that such tolling ended when class action certification was denied in Texas state court in June 2010. This ruling has been transmitted to the Third Circuit Court. Presumably, then, the litigation will proceed at the district court. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency. Chavez. In June, 2012, several matters were filed against AMVAC and several co-defendants with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (DC-1-12-CV-00697 through 00702) under the lead name Chavez (which matters were later consolidated). These cases involve 219 claimants from Panama, Ecuador and Costa Rica who claim physical injury arising from the use of DBCP over the course of the late 1960’s through early 1980’s. In light of the fact that identical matters had been filed previously in the Louisiana courts, the District Court in Chavez dismissed the actions in August 2012. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and, in September, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, finding that it was improper for the trial court to have dismissed the matters, given that the cases in Louisiana had been dismissed before a ruling on the merits. The matter remained inactive and was stayed in June, 2017, when (as reported in Abad Castillo and Marquinez, above), the Third Circuit submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on whether the tolling period for the statute of limitations had ended. In light of the ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court that the tolling period had not ended, the stay on the Chavez case is effectively lifted, and the matter will proceed to be litigated. No discovery has been conducted in Chavez. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company believes that a loss is neither probably nor reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency. 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 States 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. On March 21, 2018, the District Court in Tennessee ruled on the motion, granting the Company’s request to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (finding that the forum selection clauses in the relevant contracts applied), but denying the request to dismiss the matter. 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. 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. Four of those interviews took place at the end of April, 2018. At this stage, however, 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.

13. Legal Proceedings— During the reporting period, there have been no material developments in legal proceedings that were reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, except as described below.

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 held 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, 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, on March 15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that federal court dismissal in 1995 on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not end class action tolling, and that such tolling ended when class action certification was denied in Texas state court in June 2010. This ruling has been transmitted to the Third Circuit Court. Presumably, then, the litigation will proceed at the district court. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and has not recorded a loss contingency.

Chavez. In June, 2012, several matters were filed against AMVAC and several co-defendants with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (DC-1-12-CV-00697 through 00702) under the lead name Chavez (which matters were later consolidated). These cases involve 219 claimants from Panama, Ecuador and Costa Rica who claim physical injury arising from the use of DBCP over the course of the late 1960’s through early 1980’s. In light of the fact that identical matters had been filed previously in the Louisiana courts, the District Court in Chavez dismissed the actions in August 2012. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and, in September, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, finding that it was improper for the trial court to have dismissed the matters, given that the cases in Louisiana had been dismissed before a ruling on the merits. The matter remained inactive and was stayed in June, 2017, when (as reported in Abad Castillo and Marquinez, above), the Third Circuit submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on whether the tolling period for the statute of limitations had ended. In light of the ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court that the tolling period had not ended, the stay on the Chavez case is effectively lifted, and the matter will proceed to be litigated. No discovery has been conducted in Chavez. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. Further, the Company believes that a loss is neither probably nor reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency.

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 States 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. On March 21, 2018, the District Court in Tennessee ruled on the motion, granting the Company’s request to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (finding that the forum selection clauses in the relevant contracts applied), but denying the request to dismiss the matter. 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.

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. Four of those interviews took place at the end of April, 2018. At this stage, however, 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.