Litigation and Environmental	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2024
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. Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation. On October 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama approved, and entered a plea agreement pursuant to which the Company had entered a plea of guilty to one count of transporting hazardous waste without a waste manifest. This matter arose from the reimportation of used, substantially empty containers in 2014. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Company paid a fine and entered into a three-year probation during which it will be subject to an environmental compliance plan, the form of which is currently before the court for its approval. 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. 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. In January 2024, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of “the most analogous case” doctrine. 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. Law and motion continued over the course of the fourth quarter with various motions to dismiss individuals and motions for summary judgment along with further depositions and requests for admission. 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 took place in April 2024. Follow-up undertakings (discover requests) continued thereafter. 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 2022, including multiple affirmative defenses. Further, the parties continue to engage in discovery, 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. Plaintiff alleges various wages and hours violations, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The parties attended a mediation on September 4, 2024, during which they agreed in principle to a settlement pursuant to which the Company has recorded a reserve that is not material to its financial statements and is sufficient to cover the settlement amount. The settlement is subject to court approval, which we expect will be forthcoming during Q3 2025. Region 9, Notice of Violation re: FPAS. On November 25, 2024, EPA Region IX issued to American Vanguard Chemical Corporation a letter requesting that AMVAC show cause why a civil penalty should not be assessed with respect to allegations that, from 2020 through 2023, AMVAC violated Section 12(a)(2)(N) of FIFRA by exporting 18 unregistered pesticides to foreign purchasers in 14 countries without submitting a Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement (“FPAS”) from each foreign purchaser to EPA, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 168.75(c). The Company is performing internal analysis on the matter and has entered into a tolling agreement with the agency to extend the time for resolution into June 2025. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss is probable and has set a reserve in an amount that is not material to its financial statements.

Litigation and Environmental

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2024

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.

Department of Justice and Environmental Protection Agency Investigation. On October 25, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama approved, and entered a plea agreement pursuant to which the Company had entered a plea of guilty to one count of transporting hazardous waste without a waste manifest. This matter arose from the reimportation of used, substantially empty containers in 2014. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Company paid a fine and entered into a three-year probation during which it will be subject to an environmental compliance plan, the form of which is currently before the court for its approval.

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.

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. In January 2024, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of “the most analogous case” doctrine. 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. Law and motion continued over the course of the fourth quarter with various motions to dismiss individuals and motions for summary judgment along with further depositions and requests for admission. 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 took place in April 2024. Follow-up undertakings (discover requests) continued thereafter. 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 2022, including multiple affirmative defenses. Further, the parties continue to engage in discovery, 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. Plaintiff alleges various wages and hours violations, including overtime, minimum wage, sick leave, rest periods and so on. The parties attended a mediation on September 4, 2024, during which they agreed in principle to a settlement pursuant to which the Company has recorded a reserve that is not material to its financial statements and is sufficient to cover the settlement amount. The settlement is subject to court approval, which we expect will be forthcoming during Q3 2025.

Region 9, Notice of Violation re: FPAS. On November 25, 2024, EPA Region IX issued to American Vanguard Chemical Corporation a letter requesting that AMVAC show cause why a civil penalty should not be assessed with respect to allegations that, from 2020 through 2023, AMVAC violated Section 12(a)(2)(N) of FIFRA by exporting 18 unregistered pesticides to foreign purchasers in 14 countries without submitting a Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement (“FPAS”) from each foreign purchaser to EPA, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 168.75(c). The Company is performing internal analysis on the matter and has entered into a tolling agreement with the agency to extend the time for resolution into June 2025. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss is probable and has set a reserve in an amount that is not material to its financial statements.