Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Environmental	(5) Litigation and Environmental The Company records a liability on its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. The Company recognizes legal expense in connection with loss contingencies as incurred. 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 (which ceased manufacture in about 1980) 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. Nicaraguan DBCP Matters According to court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, 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. The company objected to personal jurisdiction and due process in those matters and demanded that the claims be litigated in the United States. The local court denied these objections in 2007, AMVAC appealed the denial, and, to the company’s knowledge, there has been no activity in these matters since that time. To date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. Nevertheless, AMVAC intends to defend these claims 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 & Marquinez. Two cases were filed independently in 2012 by the same law firm (HendlerLaw, P.C.) in Louisiana and Delaware involving claims on behalf of banana workers for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP. Through several years of law and motion practice, the number of plaintiffs in the actions has been reduced from about 2,750 to 290 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama, and both cases have been consolidated before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695 & 00697). Discovery commenced in 2018 and has consisted largely of seeking medical examinations from the remaining plaintiffs. In December 2022, defendants in this matter filed a motion for summary judgment against the Ecuadorian plaintiffs under the theory that the statute of limitations for negligence barred the action. Briefing on the motion is set to conclude in March 2023. 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. 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 parties stipulated that, because it was not named as a defendant in an earlier 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. There has been no activity in this matter since November 2018. Further, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. Adams v. Dole Food Company et al. On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers (and their spouses), alleging 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 there is no estimated date of determination. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter. Other Matters Department of Justice ("DOJ") and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation. On November 10, 2016, AMVAC 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 in defending the Company’s interests. AMVAC is cooperating in the investigation. After interviewing multiple witnesses (including three employees before a grand jury in February 2022) and making multiple document requests, the DOJ identified the Company and a manager-level employee as targets of the government’s investigation. DOJ’s investigation focused on potential 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. In March 2022, the individual target entered into a plea agreement relating to provision of false information in a government proceeding. In July 2022, the DOJ sent correspondence to the Company’s counsel to the effect that it was focusing on potential RCRA violations relating to the reimportation of Australian containers in 2015. Our defense counsel spoke with DOJ on the subject in early October, and the DOJ, which expressed an interest in resolving the matter, stated that it would get back to the Company with its position. 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 or whether it 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. Pitre etc. v. Agrocentre Ladauniere et al. On February 11, 2022, a strawberry grower named Les Enterprises Pitre, Inc. filed a complaint in the Superior Court, District of Labelle, Province of Quebec, Canada, entitled Pitre, etc. v. Agrocentre Ladauniere, Inc. etal, including Amvac Chemical Corporation, seeking damages in the amount of approximately $5 million arising from stunted growth of, and reduced yield from, its strawberry crop allegedly from the application of Amvac’s soil fumigant, Vapam, in spring of 2021. Examinations of plaintiff were held in mid-August 2022, during which plaintiff in effect confirmed that he had planted his seedlings before expiration of the full time interval following product application (as per the product label), that he had failed to follow the practice of planting a few test seedlings before planting an entire farm, and that he had placed his blind trust in his application adviser on all manner of timing and rate. The company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter. At this stage in the proceedings, there is not sufficient information to form a judgment as to either the probability or amount of loss; thus, the company has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter. Catalano v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. On June 6, 2022, AMVAC was served with a summons and complaint for a matter entitled Andrew Catalano and Ruth Catalano v. AMVAC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (30-2022-01263987-CU-PL-CXC) in which plaintiff, who worked as a professional applicator of pesticides, including Orthene (for which AMVAC is registrant) seeks damages for an injury (specifically, cardiomyopathy) allegedly arising from his exposure to this product. AMVAC is unaware of any link between cardiovascular disease and Orthene (which has been commercially available for over 30 years) and believes that this case has no merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company filed an answer in early July, including multiple affirmative defenses. Further, the parties are exchanging document requests, and plaintiffs have been unable to supply any data establishing a causal link between use of this product and the heart condition that plaintiff alleges. At this stage, there is not sufficient information to form a judgment as to either the probability or amount of any loss; thus, the company has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter. Notice of Intention to Suspend DCPA. On April 28, 2022, the USEPA published a notice of intent to suspend (“NOITS”) DCPA, the active ingredient of an herbicide marketed by the Company under the name Dacthal. The agency cited as the basis for the suspension that the Company did not take appropriate steps to provide data studies requested in support of the registration review. In fact, over the course of several years, the Company cooperated in performing the vast majority of the nearly 90 studies requested by USEPA and had been working in good faith to meet the agency’s schedule. After an appeals court (the Environmental Appeals Board) clarified the proper standard for use at the hearing (namely, whether registrant took appropriate steps to respond to the data call-in), a hearing was held in January 2023 before the ALJ, by which time USEPA had narrowed the scope of its claim to nine outstanding studies, all of which have been started by the Company and none of which are necessary for USEPA to commence its risk assessment. The parties are now preparing post-hearing briefs, after the submission of which the ALJ will render a decision. During the course of these proceedings, AMVAC has been free to make, sell and distribute both the technical grade material and end-use product and may continue to do so unless and until there is an adverse ruling at both the trial and appellate level (if any). The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor estimable and, consequently, has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter.

Litigation and Environmental

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

(5) Litigation and Environmental

The Company records a liability on its consolidated financial statements for loss contingencies when a loss is known or considered probable, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. When determining the estimated loss or range of loss, significant judgment is required to estimate the amount and timing of a loss to be recorded. The Company recognizes legal expense in connection with loss contingencies as incurred.

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 (which ceased manufacture in about 1980) 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.

Nicaraguan DBCP Matters

According to court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, 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. The company objected to personal jurisdiction and due process in those matters and demanded that the claims be litigated in the United States. The local court denied these objections in 2007, AMVAC appealed the denial, and, to the company’s knowledge, there has been no activity in these matters since that time. To date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. Nevertheless, AMVAC intends to defend these claims 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 & Marquinez. Two cases were filed independently in 2012 by the same law firm (HendlerLaw, P.C.) in Louisiana and Delaware involving claims on behalf of banana workers for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP. Through several years of law and motion practice, the number of plaintiffs in the actions has been reduced from about 2,750 to 290 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama, and both cases have been consolidated before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695 & 00697). Discovery commenced in 2018 and has consisted largely of seeking medical examinations from the remaining plaintiffs. In December 2022, defendants in this matter filed a motion for summary judgment against the Ecuadorian plaintiffs under the theory that the statute of limitations for negligence barred the action. Briefing on the motion is set to conclude in March 2023. 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.

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 parties stipulated that, because it was not named as a defendant in an earlier 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. There has been no activity in this matter since November 2018. Further, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

Adams v. Dole Food Company et al. On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers (and their spouses), alleging 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 there is no estimated date of determination. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

Other Matters

Department of Justice ("DOJ") and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation. On November 10, 2016, AMVAC 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 in defending the Company’s interests. AMVAC is cooperating in the investigation. After interviewing multiple witnesses (including three employees before a grand jury in February 2022) and making multiple document requests, the DOJ identified the Company and a manager-level employee as targets of the government’s investigation. DOJ’s investigation focused on potential 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. In March 2022, the individual target entered into a plea agreement relating to provision of false information in a government proceeding. In July 2022, the DOJ sent correspondence to the Company’s counsel to the effect that it was focusing on potential RCRA violations relating to the reimportation of Australian containers in 2015. Our defense counsel spoke with DOJ on the subject in early October, and the DOJ, which expressed an interest in resolving the matter, stated that it would get back to the Company with its position.

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 or whether it 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.

Pitre etc. v. Agrocentre Ladauniere et al. On February 11, 2022, a strawberry grower named Les Enterprises Pitre, Inc. filed a complaint in the Superior Court, District of Labelle, Province of Quebec, Canada, entitled Pitre, etc. v. Agrocentre Ladauniere, Inc. etal, including Amvac Chemical Corporation, seeking damages in the amount of approximately $5 million arising from stunted growth of, and reduced yield from, its strawberry crop allegedly from the application of Amvac’s soil fumigant, Vapam, in spring of 2021. Examinations of plaintiff were held in mid-August 2022, during which plaintiff in effect confirmed that he had planted his seedlings before expiration of the full time interval following product application (as per the product label), that he had failed to follow the practice of planting a few test seedlings before planting an entire farm, and that he had placed his blind trust in his application adviser on all manner of timing and rate. The company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter. At this stage in the proceedings, there is not sufficient information to form a judgment as to either the probability or amount of loss; thus, the company has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter.

Catalano v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. On June 6, 2022, AMVAC was served with a summons and complaint for a matter entitled Andrew Catalano and Ruth Catalano v. AMVAC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (30-2022-01263987-CU-PL-CXC) in which plaintiff, who worked as a professional applicator of pesticides, including Orthene (for which AMVAC is registrant) seeks damages for an injury (specifically, cardiomyopathy) allegedly arising from his exposure to this product. AMVAC is unaware of any link between cardiovascular disease and Orthene (which has been commercially available for over 30 years) and believes that this case has no merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company filed an answer in early July, including multiple affirmative defenses. Further, the parties are exchanging document requests, and plaintiffs have been unable to supply any data establishing a causal link between use of this product and the heart condition that plaintiff alleges. At this stage, there is not sufficient information to form a judgment as to either the probability or amount of any loss; thus, the company has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter.

Notice of Intention to Suspend DCPA. On April 28, 2022, the USEPA published a notice of intent to suspend (“NOITS”) DCPA, the active ingredient of an herbicide marketed by the Company under the name Dacthal. The agency cited as the basis for the suspension that the Company did not take appropriate steps to provide data studies requested in support of the registration review. In fact, over the course of several years, the Company cooperated in performing the vast majority of the nearly 90 studies requested by USEPA and had been working in good faith to meet the agency’s schedule. After an appeals court (the Environmental Appeals Board) clarified the proper standard for use at the hearing (namely, whether registrant took appropriate steps to respond to the data call-in), a hearing was held in January 2023 before the ALJ, by which time USEPA had narrowed the scope of its claim to nine outstanding studies, all of which have been started by the Company and none of which are necessary for USEPA to commence its risk assessment. The parties are now preparing post-hearing briefs, after the submission of which the ALJ will render a decision. During the course of these proceedings, AMVAC has been free to make, sell and distribute both the technical grade material and end-use product and may continue to do so unless and until there is an adverse ruling at both the trial and appellate level (if any). The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor estimable and, consequently, has not set aside a reserve in connection with this matter.