Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	12. Commitments and Contingencies — 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. 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 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 has recorded a loss contingency. A Company representative attended a hearing to enter a plea of guilty (to one count of transporting hazardous waste without a waste manifest) on the matter in late May 2024. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Company would pay a fine and enter into a three-year probation during which it would be subject to an environmental compliance plan. The court provisionally accepted the plea, subject to entry of an order following a sentencing hearing on October 25, 2024. The Company recorded a liability related to 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 number 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, captioned 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 multiple wages and hours violations, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. The parties have agreed to hold an early mediation in lieu of extensive discovery in September 2024. Based upon their review of a partial set of Company documents, defense counsel has set a range of settlement value, and, accordingly, the Company has recorded a loss contingency. 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. In January 2024, the court denied 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. In July 2024, the magistrate entered a scheduling order by which trials have been set for the approximately 60 plaintiffs from Ecuador to occur in groups of ten, beginning in February 2026. This schedule will likely engender additional pre-trial discovery by plaintiff. 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. 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 proceedings in law and motion, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with USEPA pursuant to which the parties set a timeline for the submission of remaining studies, which, if approved by the agency, would result in reinstatement of the registration. The Company submitted the studies in question, the agency reviewed them, and the registration was reinstated in November 2023. After that reinstatement, the agency resumed registration review, during which it expressed concern over the potential health effects on farm workers in early stages of pregnancy. These concerns arose over a comparative thyroid assay (“CTA”), a relatively new and complex study, which indicated an effect on fetal rodents. In an effort to meet the agency’s concerns, over a period of several months, the Company provided significant training to USEPA on actual use patterns for Dacthal, worker re-entry practices, size of fields treated per diem and geographical focus. Nevertheless, in April 2024, USEPA concluded that, despite the mitigation measures and other information proposed by the Company and due to its safety concerns, the agency was at an impasse in advancing its registration review of the then current label. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, the Company submitted a significantly narrower label and voluntarily suspended sales of Dacthal pending review and potential approval of that label. On August 6, 2024, USEPA issued an emergency order suspending all registrations of, and prohibiting all distribution, sale and use of, DCPA/Dacthal on the basis of its finding a risk of imminent harm to pregnant individuals who may be exposed to the product, based upon thyroid hormone disruption observed in prenatal rodents within a comparative thyroid assay test. While noting that the Company had attempted to address the agency’s concerns, USEPA could find no combination of practicable mitigations that would permit continued use of the product. As registrant, the Company may seek an expedited hearing on the suspension. However, the only events that would lift the order are a contrary finding by an ALJ after expedited hearing, USEPA electing not to issue a notice of intent to cancel within 90 days, or cancellation of the registrations. Given the recent date of the issuance of the order, the Company is still analyzing the matter and is not yet able to form an opinion as to whether, if the label were to be cancelled, expenses that might be incurred such as accepting returned product could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2024

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

12. Commitments and Contingencies — 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.

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 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 has recorded a loss contingency. A Company representative attended a hearing to enter a plea of guilty (to one count of transporting hazardous waste without a waste manifest) on the matter in late May 2024. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Company would pay a fine and enter into a three-year probation during which it would be subject to an environmental compliance plan. The court provisionally accepted the plea, subject to entry of an order following a sentencing hearing on October 25, 2024. The Company recorded a liability related to 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 number 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, captioned 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 multiple wages and hours violations, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously. The parties have agreed to hold an early mediation in lieu of extensive discovery in September 2024. Based upon their review of a partial set of Company documents, defense counsel has set a range of settlement value, and, accordingly, the Company has recorded a loss contingency.

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. In January 2024, the court denied 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. In July 2024, the magistrate entered a scheduling order by which trials have been set for the approximately 60 plaintiffs from Ecuador to occur in groups of ten, beginning in February 2026. This schedule will likely engender additional pre-trial discovery by plaintiff. 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.

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 proceedings in law and motion, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with USEPA pursuant to which the parties set a timeline for the submission of remaining studies, which, if approved by the agency, would result in reinstatement of the registration. The Company submitted the studies in question, the agency reviewed them, and the registration was reinstated in November 2023.

After that reinstatement, the agency resumed registration review, during which it expressed concern over the potential health effects on farm workers in early stages of pregnancy. These concerns arose over a comparative thyroid assay (“CTA”), a relatively new and complex study, which indicated an effect on fetal rodents. In an effort to meet the agency’s concerns, over a period of several months, the Company provided significant training to USEPA on actual use patterns for Dacthal, worker re-entry practices, size of fields treated per diem and geographical focus. Nevertheless, in April 2024, USEPA concluded that, despite the mitigation measures and other information proposed by the Company and due to its safety concerns, the agency was at an impasse in advancing its registration review of the then current label. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, the Company submitted a significantly narrower label and voluntarily suspended sales of Dacthal pending review and potential approval of that label.

On August 6, 2024, USEPA issued an emergency order suspending all registrations of, and prohibiting all distribution, sale and use of, DCPA/Dacthal on the basis of its finding a risk of imminent harm to pregnant individuals who may be exposed to the product, based upon thyroid hormone disruption observed in prenatal rodents within a comparative thyroid assay test. While noting that the Company had attempted to address the agency’s concerns, USEPA could find no combination of practicable mitigations that would permit continued use of the product. As registrant, the Company may seek an expedited hearing on the suspension. However, the only events that would lift the order are a contrary finding by an ALJ after expedited hearing, USEPA electing not to issue a notice of intent to cancel within 90 days, or cancellation of the registrations. Given the recent date of the issuance of the order, the Company is still analyzing the matter and is not yet able to form an opinion as to whether, if the label were to be cancelled, expenses that might be incurred such as accepting returned product could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s results of operations.