Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
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 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. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2020. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2020 is as follows. The two cases remaining in Delaware include 287 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; this matter has 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, was appealed before the Supreme Court of Delaware and was subsequently dismissed by that court. 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 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 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. There were no changes in connection with these matters in 2020. 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 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. Abad Castillo and Marquinez. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and 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 was 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 are now pending at the district court, following the appeals court’s ruling. Discovery has commenced, and the court is considering proposed schedules for completing discovery over the next 12-24 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. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable for either Chavez or Marquinez and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters. Chaverri. This matter, which 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 HendlerLaw P.C. 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. The court heard oral argument by the parties and, on November 8, 2019, denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate on the ground that the motion was untimely, and plaintiffs had presented no extraordinary circumstances to support this unusual remedy. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s order to the Supreme Court of Delaware, which issued a ruling on January 12, 2021 denying plaintiffs’ appeal on the dual ground that plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances for vacating the lower court’s dismissal order and, at any rate, were unreasonably delayed in the filing of their appeal. In short, the dismissal with prejudice has been affirmed, and this case is concluded. 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 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, and, accordingly have not recorded a loss contingency in connection therewith. There were no changes in this matter during 2020. 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. There were no changes in connection with this matter in 2020. Other Matters Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation On November 10, 2016, AMVAC was served with a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama, seeking documents regarding the importation, transportation, and management of a specific pesticide. The Company retained defense counsel to assist in responding to the subpoena and otherwise defending the Company’s interests. AMVAC is cooperating in the investigation. Since April 2018, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has conducted several interviews of AMVAC employees and issued supplemental document requests in connection with the investigation. In November 2020, DOJ issued a second grand jury subpoena seeking records and related communications with regard to a submission made by the Company to the USEPA in connection with a request to amend a pesticide’s registration. Soon thereafter, DOJ also identified the Company and one of its non-executive employees as targets of the government’s investigation. In January 2021, DOJ and EPA informed the Company that it is investigating violations of two environmental statutes, FIFRA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as well as obstruction of an agency proceeding and false statement statutes. DOJ also identified for the Company evidence that it contends supports such violations. The Company is evaluating the legal and factual issues raised by the government and is engaged in discussions with DOJ regarding possible resolution. The governmental agencies involved in this investigation have a range of civil and criminal penalties they may seek to impose against corporations and individuals for violations of FIFRA, RCRA and other federal statutes including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices and compliance programs, including the appointment of a monitor. If violations are established, the amount of any fines or monetary penalties which could be assessed and the scope of possible non-monetary relief would depend on, among other factors, findings regarding the amount, timing, nature and scope of the violations, and the level of cooperation provided to the governmental authorities during the investigation. As a result, the Company cannot yet anticipate the timing or predict the ultimate resolution of this investigation, financial or otherwise, which could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, operations, financial condition and cash flow. 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. Four other related matters were subsequently consolidated into this case (alleging loss of potatoes, damage to equipment, damage to Quonset huts and loss of business income). 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. Over the course of 2020, discovery was completed, and the parties held a mediation on March 11,2021; however, no settlement was reached. Thus, pre-trial discovery will likely take place within the next several weeks. The Company believes that it is not primarily at risk but that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and, to that end, has recorded a loss contingency in an amount that is not material to its financial performance or operations. Environmental L.A. Facility Site. In 1995, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Facility Assessment (“RFA”) of those facilities having hazardous waste storage permits. In March 1997, the RFA culminated in DTSC accepting the Facility into its Expedited Remedial Action Program. Under this program, the Facility was required to conduct an environmental investigation and health risk assessment. This activity then took two paths: first, the RCRA permit closure and second, the larger site characterization. With respect to the RCRA permit closure, in 1998, AMVAC began the formal process to close its hazardous waste permit at the Facility (which had allowed AMVAC to store hazardous waste longer than 90 days) as required by federal regulations. Formal regulatory closure actions began in 2005 and were completed in 2008, as evidenced by DTSC’s October 1, 2008 acknowledgement of AMVAC’s Closure Certification Report. With respect to the larger site characterization, soil and groundwater characterization activities began in December 2002 in accordance with the Site Investigation Plan that was approved by DTSC. Extensive characterization activities (involving testing and mapping of soil, soil gas, water and air) were conducted from 2003 to 2014, with oversight provided by DTSC. In 2014, the Company submitted a remedial action plan (“RAP”) to DTSC, under the provisions of which the Company proposed not to disturb sub-surface contaminants, but to continue to maintain the cover above affected soil, to perform limited monitoring of select wells and to enter into restrictive covenants regarding the potential use of the property in the future. Under the RAP, the Company will, in effect, preserve the status quo with respect to subsurface conditions. Accordingly, it will continue to maintain and repair floors and parking lots (as it has been doing over the past few decades on a routine basis) as well as monitoring subsurface wells and/or closing such wells as needed. In January 2017, the RAP was circulated for public comment. DTSC responded to those comments and, on September 29, 2017, approved the RAP as submitted by the Company. The Company is preparing an operation and maintenance plan and to record covenants on certain affected parcels and otherwise follow through on its obligations thereunder. The level of work required to maintain the site over the next 20 years should be far less than that in which the Company had been engaged prior to the RAP, when significant testing of air, soil, soil gas and water was being conducted to characterize the site. We will be expensing maintenance and monitoring costs over the course of the next 20 years and expect that those costs, while varying from year to year, will be immaterial. At this stage, then, Company does not believe that there will be any incremental costs to be incurred in connection with the RAP, as we are essentially continuing routine maintenance of the premises and a reduced plan of well monitoring. Thus, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for these activities. There were no material changes in this matter during 2020. Risk Management Plan – Axis, Alabama. On July 30, 2018, inspectors from USEPA conducted a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) audit of the Company’s facility in Axis, Alabama and, in January, 2019, offered the Company an opportunity to show cause (“OSC”) why the Company should not be cited for nine potential infractions of the Clean Air Act, including alleged failure to conduct inspection and testing on certain process equipment, inadequate training and documentation of such inspections and inadequate management of changes for process chemicals, equipment and the like. The Company sought a meeting to contest the alleged violations and, on March 26, 2019, provided Region 4 of USEPA with a summary of the company’s relevant past compliance efforts and future plan for further effecting compliance. The Company met with USEPA officials in early January, 2021, and outlined progress to date (including, among other things, that it had maintained, attained, or furthered compliance in eight of the nine areas alleged) and its plans regarding further mechanical integrity inspection efforts. After evaluating the matter, USEPA proposed to drop a number of violations and recommended a settlement in an immaterial amount. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss in this matter is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency in an amount that is not material to its financial performance or operations.

Litigation and Environmental

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

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 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 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. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2020. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2020 is as follows. The two cases remaining in Delaware include 287 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; this matter has 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, was appealed before the Supreme Court of Delaware and was subsequently dismissed by that court.

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 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 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. There were no changes in connection with these matters in 2020.

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 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.

Abad Castillo and Marquinez. On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and 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 was 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 are now pending at the district court, following the appeals court’s ruling. Discovery has commenced, and the court is considering proposed schedules for completing discovery over the next 12-24 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. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable for either Chavez or Marquinez and has not recorded a loss contingency for these matters.

Chaverri. This matter, which 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 HendlerLaw P.C. 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. The court heard oral argument by the parties and, on November 8, 2019, denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate on the ground that the motion was untimely, and plaintiffs had presented no extraordinary circumstances to support this unusual remedy. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s order to the Supreme Court of Delaware, which issued a ruling on January 12, 2021 denying plaintiffs’ appeal on the dual ground that plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances for vacating the lower court’s dismissal order and, at any rate, were unreasonably delayed in the filing of their appeal. In short, the dismissal with prejudice has been affirmed, and this case is concluded.

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 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, and, accordingly have not recorded a loss contingency in connection therewith. There were no changes in this matter during 2020.

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. There were no changes in connection with this matter in 2020.

Other Matters

Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation

On November 10, 2016, AMVAC was served with a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Alabama, seeking documents regarding the importation, transportation, and management of a specific pesticide. The Company retained defense counsel to assist in responding to the subpoena and otherwise defending the Company’s interests. AMVAC is cooperating in the investigation.

Since April 2018, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has conducted several interviews of AMVAC employees and issued supplemental document requests in connection with the investigation. In November 2020, DOJ issued a second grand jury subpoena seeking records and related communications with regard to a submission made by the Company to the USEPA in connection with a request to amend a pesticide’s registration. Soon thereafter, DOJ also identified the Company and one of its non-executive employees as targets of the government’s investigation. In January 2021, DOJ and EPA informed the Company that it is investigating violations of two environmental statutes, FIFRA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as well as obstruction of an agency proceeding and false statement statutes. DOJ also identified for the Company evidence that it contends supports such violations. The Company is evaluating the legal and factual issues raised by the government and is engaged in discussions with DOJ regarding possible resolution.

The governmental agencies involved in this investigation have a range of civil and criminal penalties they may seek to impose against corporations and individuals for violations of FIFRA, RCRA and other federal statutes including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, fines, penalties and modifications to business practices and compliance programs, including the appointment of a monitor. If violations are established, the amount of any fines or monetary penalties which could be assessed and the scope of possible non-monetary relief would depend on, among other factors, findings regarding the amount, timing, nature and scope of the violations, and the level of cooperation provided to the governmental authorities during the investigation. As a result, the Company cannot yet anticipate the timing or predict the ultimate resolution of this investigation, financial or otherwise, which could have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, operations, financial condition and cash flow.

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. Four other related matters were subsequently consolidated into this case (alleging loss of potatoes, damage to equipment, damage to Quonset huts and loss of business income). 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. Over the course of 2020, discovery was completed, and the parties held a mediation on March 11,2021; however, no settlement was reached. Thus, pre-trial discovery will likely take place within the next several weeks. The Company believes that it is not primarily at risk but that a loss is probable and reasonably estimable and, to that end, has recorded a loss contingency in an amount that is not material to its financial performance or operations.

Environmental

L.A. Facility Site. In 1995, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Facility Assessment (“RFA”) of those facilities having hazardous waste storage permits. In March 1997, the RFA culminated in DTSC accepting the Facility into its Expedited Remedial Action Program. Under this program, the Facility was required to conduct an environmental investigation and health risk assessment. This activity then took two paths: first, the RCRA permit closure and second, the larger site characterization. With respect to the RCRA permit closure, in 1998, AMVAC began the formal process to close its hazardous waste permit at the Facility (which had allowed AMVAC to store hazardous waste longer than 90 days) as required by federal regulations. Formal regulatory closure actions began in 2005 and were completed in 2008, as evidenced by DTSC’s October 1, 2008 acknowledgement of AMVAC’s Closure Certification Report.

With respect to the larger site characterization, soil and groundwater characterization activities began in December 2002 in accordance with the Site Investigation Plan that was approved by DTSC. Extensive characterization activities (involving testing and mapping of soil, soil gas, water and air) were conducted from 2003 to 2014, with oversight provided by DTSC. In 2014, the Company submitted a remedial action plan (“RAP”) to DTSC, under the provisions of which the Company proposed not to disturb sub-surface contaminants, but to continue to maintain the cover above affected soil, to perform limited monitoring of select wells and to enter into restrictive covenants regarding the potential use of the property in the future. Under the RAP, the Company will, in effect, preserve the status quo with respect to subsurface conditions. Accordingly, it will continue to maintain and repair floors and parking lots (as it has been doing over the past few decades on a routine basis) as well as monitoring subsurface wells and/or closing such wells as needed.

In January 2017, the RAP was circulated for public comment. DTSC responded to those comments and, on September 29, 2017, approved the RAP as submitted by the Company. The Company is preparing an operation and maintenance plan and to record covenants on certain affected parcels and otherwise follow through on its obligations thereunder. The level of work required to maintain the site over the next 20 years should be far less than that in which the Company had been engaged prior to the RAP, when significant testing of air, soil, soil gas and water was being conducted to characterize the site. We will be expensing maintenance and monitoring costs over the course of the next 20 years and expect that those costs, while varying from year to year, will be immaterial. At this stage, then, Company does not believe that there will be any incremental costs to be incurred in connection with

the RAP, as we are essentially continuing routine maintenance of the premises and a reduced plan of well monitoring. Thus, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for these activities. There were no material changes in this matter during 2020.

Risk Management Plan – Axis, Alabama. On July 30, 2018, inspectors from USEPA conducted a Risk Management Plan (“RMP”) audit of the Company’s facility in Axis, Alabama and, in January, 2019, offered the Company an opportunity to show cause (“OSC”) why the Company should not be cited for nine potential infractions of the Clean Air Act, including alleged failure to conduct inspection and testing on certain process equipment, inadequate training and documentation of such inspections and inadequate management of changes for process chemicals, equipment and the like. The Company sought a meeting to contest the alleged violations and, on March 26, 2019, provided Region 4 of USEPA with a summary of the company’s relevant past compliance efforts and future plan for further effecting compliance. The Company met with USEPA officials in early January, 2021, and outlined progress to date (including, among other things, that it had maintained, attained, or furthered compliance in eight of the nine areas alleged) and its plans regarding further mechanical integrity inspection efforts. After evaluating the matter, USEPA proposed to drop a number of violations and recommended a settlement in an immaterial amount. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss in this matter is probable and reasonably estimable and has recorded a loss contingency in an amount that is not material to its financial performance or operations.