Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	14. 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, 2021, except as described below. EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena from the United States 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 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 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, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as well as obstruction of an agency proceeding and false statement statutes. DOJ also identified evidence that it contends supports alleged violations with respect to both the Company and the individual target. As part of discussions regarding possible resolution, in October 2021, the Company presented its evaluation of the legal and factual issues raised by the government (which do not include any allegations of harm to human health or the environment) to both DOJ and USEPA. Further, three corporate witnesses were interviewed by the grand jury in Mobile, Alabama in February 2022. Following that interview, the individual target entered into a plea agreement which was entered by the court having jurisdiction in this matter in May 2022. In July 2022, the DOJ outlined its current view of the investigation and indicated an interest in reaching resolution of the matter. Further discussions on that subject are imminent. The Company expects that talks regarding potential resolution will resume in the near future. 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. Accordingly, we have not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al. During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs, Harold Reed (an applicator) and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (an application equipment rental company), allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta on April 2, 2014. 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. The parties participated in a second mediation in August 2022, during which plaintiffs significantly lowered their collective demands, and all parties were able to reach a settlement under the terms of which three co-defendants (including the Company) are equally sharing in a cash contribution. The Company’s contribution toward settlement was largely covered by pre-existing reserves and, in any event, is not material to its financial performance or operations. The court has entered an order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement; thus, this matter is resolved. DCPA Suspension Proceedings. In May 2022, the USEPA issued a notice of intention to suspend DCPA, the active ingredient of an herbicidal product marketed by the Company under the name Dacthal, on the basis that the Company acted allegedly inappropriately in providing data studies that had been requested by the agency. In fact, the agency had requested 89 data studies and, over the course of several years, the Company had supplied 69 such studies and had been working constructively on mutually acceptable timetables either to complete, or to obtain waivers for, the balance of the studies. The Company petitioned an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to appeal the notice of intention to suspend ("NOITS"). In response to USEPA’s motion, the ALJ granted an accelerated decision to uphold the NOITS. The Company, in turn, has appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”), on the ground that the basis was erroneous, both with respect to statutory construction and factual inferences being improperly made in the agency’s favor. In October 2022, the EAB reversed the ALJ’s order, finding that that court had used a statutorily improper standard (namely, whether the Company had submitted all requested data as opposed to the proper standard of whether the Company acted appropriately in responding to the data call-ins). The matter has been remanded to the ALJ, which has set a hearing date of January 24, 2023. At the same time, USEPA has expressed an interest in settlement of the matter; thus, the Company, USEPA and the Office of General Counsel are engaged in settlement discussions in parallel with the proceedings at the ALJ. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict the probable outcome of the matter and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency with respect thereto.

Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2022

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

14. 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, 2021, except as described below.

EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter. On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena from the United States 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 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 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, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as well as obstruction of an agency proceeding and false statement statutes. DOJ also identified evidence that it contends supports alleged violations with respect to both the Company and the individual target. As part of discussions regarding possible resolution, in October 2021, the Company presented its evaluation of the legal and factual issues raised by the government (which do not include any allegations of harm to human health or the environment) to both DOJ and USEPA. Further, three corporate witnesses were interviewed by the grand jury in Mobile, Alabama in February 2022. Following that interview, the individual target entered into a plea agreement which was entered by the court having jurisdiction in this matter in May 2022. In July 2022, the DOJ outlined its current view of the investigation and indicated an interest in reaching resolution of the matter. Further discussions on that subject are imminent. The Company expects that talks regarding potential resolution will resume in the near future.

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. Accordingly, we have not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

Harold Reed v. AMVAC et al. During January 2017, the Company was served with two Statements of Claim that had been filed on March 29, 2016 with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada (as case numbers 160600211 and 160600237) in which plaintiffs, Harold Reed (an applicator) and 819596 Alberta Ltd. dba Jem Holdings (an application equipment rental company), allege physical injury and damage to equipment, respectively, arising from a fire that occurred during an application of the Company’s potato sprout inhibitor, SmartBlock, at a potato storage facility in Coaldale, Alberta on April 2, 2014. 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. The parties participated in a second mediation in August 2022, during which plaintiffs significantly lowered their collective demands, and all parties were able to reach a settlement under the terms of which three co-defendants (including the Company) are equally sharing in a cash contribution. The Company’s contribution toward settlement was largely covered by pre-existing reserves and, in any event, is not material to its financial performance or operations. The court has entered an order of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement; thus, this matter is resolved.

DCPA Suspension Proceedings. In May 2022, the USEPA issued a notice of intention to suspend DCPA, the active ingredient of an herbicidal product marketed by the Company under the name Dacthal, on the basis that the Company acted allegedly inappropriately in providing data studies that had been requested by the agency. In fact, the agency had requested 89 data studies and, over the course of several years, the Company had supplied 69 such studies and had been working constructively on mutually acceptable timetables either to complete, or to obtain waivers for, the balance of the studies. The Company petitioned an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to appeal the notice of intention to suspend ("NOITS"). In response to USEPA’s motion, the ALJ granted an accelerated decision to uphold the NOITS. The Company, in turn, has appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”), on the ground that the basis was erroneous, both with respect to statutory construction and factual inferences being improperly made in the agency’s favor. In October 2022, the EAB reversed the ALJ’s order, finding that that court had used a statutorily improper standard (namely, whether the Company had submitted all requested data as opposed to the proper standard of whether the Company acted appropriately in responding to the data call-ins). The matter has been remanded to the ALJ, which has set a hearing date of January 24, 2023. At the same time, USEPA has expressed an interest in settlement of the matter; thus, the Company, USEPA and the Office of General Counsel are engaged in settlement discussions in parallel with the proceedings at the ALJ. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict the probable outcome of the matter and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss contingency with respect thereto.