Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
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 expenses 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. Four inactive cases (two pending in Nicaragua and two in Hawai’i) remain pending, while one active case is described below. 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. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling. However, in January 2024, the court rejected defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of “the most analogous case” doctrine and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. 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. Other Matters 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. An examination of the Company’s most knowledgeable witness is scheduled to take place in 2024. 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, 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. Reyes v. AMVAC. On September 28, 2023, the Company received correspondence from counsel for ex-employee Jorge Reyes Jr. addressed to the California Department of Industrial Relations alleging a host of wage and hour violations under California law. This is a precursor to a civil filing under applicable state law. Subsequently, plaintiff, putatively on behalf of the class of similarly situated, non-exempt California-based employees, served a summons and complaint on the Company’s registered agent that had been electronically filed as Case No. 238TCV23665, encaptioned Jorge Reyes v. AMVAC etc., etal., with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. As is typical of this sort of action, plaintiff alleges wages and hours violations of all imaginable types, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to tell whether any of the claims have merit. Accordingly, the company has not recorded a loss contingency in connection therewith. Department of Justice 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 Department of Justice (“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 conferred with DoJ from time to time over the past 18 months in the interest in resolving the matter. In January 2024, the Company and DoJ reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to approval by the cognizant court and with respect to which the Company recorded a loss contingency. 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. Based upon the content of agreement in principle, the Company does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, operations, financial condition or cash flow.

Litigation and Environmental

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

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 expenses 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. Four inactive cases (two pending in Nicaragua and two in Hawai’i) remain pending, while one active case is described below.

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. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling. However, in January 2024, the court rejected defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of “the most analogous case” doctrine and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. 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.

Other Matters

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. An examination of the Company’s most knowledgeable witness is scheduled to take place in 2024. 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, 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.

Reyes v. AMVAC. On September 28, 2023, the Company received correspondence from counsel for ex-employee Jorge Reyes Jr. addressed to the California Department of Industrial Relations alleging a host of wage and hour violations under California law. This is a precursor to a civil filing under applicable state law. Subsequently, plaintiff, putatively on behalf of the class of similarly situated, non-exempt California-based employees, served a summons and complaint on the Company’s registered agent that had been electronically filed as Case No. 238TCV23665, encaptioned Jorge Reyes v. AMVAC etc., etal., with the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. As is typical of this sort of action, plaintiff alleges wages and hours violations of all imaginable types, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to tell whether any of the claims have merit. Accordingly, the company has not recorded a loss contingency in connection therewith.

Department of Justice 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 Department of Justice (“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 conferred with DoJ from time to time over the past 18 months in the interest in resolving the matter. In January 2024, the Company and DoJ reached an agreement in principle, which is subject to approval by the cognizant court and with respect to which the Company recorded a loss contingency.

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. Based upon the content of agreement in principle, the Company does not believe that the investigation will have a material adverse effect on our business prospects, operations, financial condition or cash flow.