Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
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 AVD 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 it. 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 2019. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2019 is as follows. The two cases remaining in Delaware includes 287 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; these matters (Chavez and Marquinez) have been remanded to the trial court, following a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on recognizing the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional tolling. In Hawaii, in the matter of Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, the parties have stipulated that the Company shall be dismissed, insofar as it was not a party to the class action case that tolled the statute of limitations. In Adams (also in Hawai’i), 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. Finally, plaintiffs in Chaverri, which had been dismissed by the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in 2012 for failure to meet the applicable statute of limitations, have brought a motion to vacate the dismissal on the ground that the matter should be subject to trial on the merits under the principle of cross-jurisdictional tolling. That motion was denied and is now on appeal. 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 $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 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 U.S.. 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 Chavez. 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 were consolidated into one matter (“Chavez”). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in Chavez 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, Chavez was remanded to the U.S. District Court in Delaware on September 2, 2016, where it remained until it was stayed in June 2017 (as indicated in “Marquinez” below) and subsequently reactivated in March 2018. Marquinez. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez, hereafter “Marquinez”) were filed with the U.S. 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, only 57 plaintiffs remain in Marquinez. 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. At that time, as mentioned above, the Chavez case had been stayed, pending the ruling of the state’s highest court. 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. Thus, both Marquinez and Chavez were remanded to the district court, following the appeals court’s receipt of the ruling. Discovery has commenced, and the court is considering proposed schedules for completing discovery over the next 24 months. At this stage, defendants have identified multiple claimants whose medical examinations disqualify them from discovery. Plaintiffs seek to complete a limited number of medical examinations in each country in order to enable a representative subgroup of claimants to proceed with the litigation, while defendants seek to complete all medical examinations before proceeding. Further, in December 2019, defendants brought a motion to the effect that damages should be adjudicated as per local law (e.g., Ecuadorian). At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters. Chaverri. This matter involves 258 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama alleging physical injury from DBCP in the late 1970’s, was originally filed in the state of Texas in 1993, then underwent a tortuous series of law and motion developments until it was ultimately refiled in May 2012 by the Hendler firm in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al. (including AMVAC) (N12C-06-017 ALR), where it was subsequently dismissed with prejudice in August 2012 under the statute of limitations. In light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s adoption of cross-jurisdictional tolling, however, in January 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, arguing that the matter had been dismissed on a basis which the Delaware Supreme Court no longer recognizes without ever having been adjudicated as to the merits. On November 8, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate on the grounds that the motion was untimely, and plaintiffs had presented no extraordinary circumstances to support this unusual remedy. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order with the Supreme Court of Delaware. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable 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 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 is, the principle under which the courts of one state recognize another state’s common law on the tolling of statutes of limitation), 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. However, in November 2018, the parties stipulated that, because it was not named as a defendant in the Carcamo matter (class action matter that gave rise to the tolling of the statute of limitations), AMVAC should be dismissed from this matter. Thus, we expect that the Company will be dismissed with prejudice from this action as soon as the court issues an order to that effect. 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, and 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 retained defense counsel to assist in responding to the subpoena and otherwise defending the Company’s interests. Over the course of the past two years, government attorneys have interviewed several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter and have sought and received documents from the Company. 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. In a matter arising from similar facts, USEPA Region 5 contacted the Company’s legal representatives in November 2019 to commence discussions on the resolution of potential civil enforcement claims that could be brought against the Company arising from its reimportation of depleted Thimet containers and the disposition of the contents of such containers in 2015. After negotiation, the Company and USEPA have entered into a consent agreement and final order (“CAFO”), including payment of a civil penalty in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial performance. 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 parties have exchanged written discovery, and depositions of persons most knowledgeable took place during the first quarter of 2019. Citing the length of the cases’ pendency and the expense, in December 2019, plaintiff Reed voluntarily dismissed two actions (160600211 and 160600237) for no consideration. With respect to the remaining actions, further depositions are scheduled during mid-year 2020. The Company believes that the claims against it in the remaining matters are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

Litigation and Environmental

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(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 AVD 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 it.

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 2019. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2019 is as follows. The two cases remaining in Delaware includes 287 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; these matters (Chavez and Marquinez) have been remanded to the trial court, following a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on recognizing the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional tolling. In Hawaii, in the matter of Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, the parties have stipulated that the Company shall be dismissed, insofar as it was not a party to the class action case that tolled the statute of limitations. In Adams (also in Hawai’i), 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. Finally, plaintiffs in Chaverri, which had been dismissed by the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in 2012 for failure to meet the applicable statute of limitations, have brought a motion to vacate the dismissal on the ground that the matter should be subject to trial on the merits under the principle of cross-jurisdictional tolling. That motion was denied and is now on appeal.

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 $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 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 U.S.. 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

Chavez. 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 were consolidated into one matter (“Chavez”). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in Chavez 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, Chavez was remanded to the U.S. District Court in Delaware on September 2, 2016, where it remained until it was stayed in June 2017 (as indicated in “Marquinez” below) and subsequently reactivated in March 2018.

Marquinez. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez, hereafter “Marquinez”) were filed with the U.S. 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, only 57 plaintiffs remain in Marquinez.

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. At that time, as mentioned above, the Chavez case had been stayed, pending the ruling of the state’s highest court. 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. Thus, both Marquinez and Chavez were remanded to the district court, following the appeals court’s receipt of the ruling. Discovery has commenced, and the court is considering proposed schedules for completing discovery over the next 24 months. At this stage, defendants have identified multiple claimants whose medical examinations disqualify them from discovery. Plaintiffs seek to complete a limited number of medical examinations in each country in order to enable a representative subgroup of claimants to proceed with the litigation, while defendants seek to complete all medical examinations before proceeding. Further, in December 2019, defendants brought a motion to the effect that damages should be adjudicated as per local law (e.g., Ecuadorian). At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters.

Chaverri. This matter involves 258 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama alleging physical injury from DBCP in the late 1970’s, was originally filed in the state of Texas in 1993, then underwent a tortuous series of law and motion developments until it was ultimately refiled in May 2012 by the Hendler firm in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al. (including AMVAC) (N12C-06-017 ALR), where it was subsequently dismissed with prejudice in August 2012 under the statute of limitations. In light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s adoption of cross-jurisdictional tolling, however, in January 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, arguing that the matter had been dismissed on a basis which the Delaware Supreme Court no longer recognizes without ever having been adjudicated as to the merits. On November 8, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate on the grounds that the motion was untimely, and plaintiffs had presented no extraordinary circumstances to support this unusual remedy. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order with the Supreme Court of Delaware. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable 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 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 is, the principle under which the courts of one state recognize another state’s common law on the tolling of statutes of limitation), 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. However, in November 2018, the parties stipulated that, because it was not named as a defendant in the Carcamo matter (class action matter that gave rise to the tolling of the statute of limitations), AMVAC should be dismissed from this matter. Thus, we expect that the Company will be dismissed with prejudice from this action as soon as the court issues an order to that effect.

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, and 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 retained defense counsel to assist in responding to the subpoena and otherwise defending the Company’s interests. Over the course of the past two years, government attorneys have interviewed several individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter and have sought and received documents from the Company. 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.

In a matter arising from similar facts, USEPA Region 5 contacted the Company’s legal representatives in November 2019 to commence discussions on the resolution of potential civil enforcement claims that could be brought against the Company arising from its reimportation of depleted Thimet containers and the disposition of the contents of such containers in 2015. After negotiation, the Company and USEPA have entered into a consent agreement and final order (“CAFO”), including payment of a civil penalty in an amount that is not material to the Company’s financial performance.

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 parties have exchanged written discovery, and depositions of persons most knowledgeable took place during the first quarter of 2019. Citing the length of the cases’ pendency and the expense, in December 2019, plaintiff Reed voluntarily dismissed two actions (160600211 and 160600237) for no consideration. With respect to the remaining actions, further depositions are scheduled during mid-year 2020. The Company believes that the claims against it in the remaining matters are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.