UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

For The Year Ended December 31, 2018

OR

For The Transition Period From                      To                      

Commission file number 001-13795

 

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

 

 

(949) 260-1200

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

NONE

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15 (d) of the Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates is $672.9 million. This figure is estimated as of June 30, 2018 at which date the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $22.95 per share. For purposes of this calculation, shares owned by executive officers, directors, and 5% stockholders known to the registrant have been deemed to be owned by affiliates. The number of shares of $.10 par value Common Stock outstanding as of June 30, 2018, was 30,294,615. The number of shares of $.10 par value Common Stock outstanding as of February 22, 2019 was 29,690,417.

 

 

 

---

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

December 31, 2018

 

 

 

 

i

---

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

PART I

Unless otherwise indicated or the context otherwise requires, the terms “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to American Vanguard Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries (“AVD”).

Forward-looking statements in this report, including without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s plans, strategies, objectives, expectations, intentions, and adequacy of resources, are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. (Refer to Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors and Part II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation, included in this Annual Report.)

American Vanguard Corporation (“AVD”) was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding company. Unless the context otherwise requires, references to the “Company” or the “Registrant,” in this Annual Report refer to AVD. The Company conducts its business through its subsidiaries, AMVAC Chemical Corporation (“AMVAC”), GemChem, Inc. (“GemChem”),  AMVAC Mexico Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada (“AMVAC M”), AMVAC de Costa Rica Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada (“AMVAC CR Srl”), AMVAC do Brasil Representácoes Ltda (“AMVAC B”), AMVAC C.V. (“AMVAC CV”), AMVAC Netherlands BV (“AMVAC BV”), Envance Technologies, LLC (“Envance”), TyraTech Inc. (“TyraTech”), AMVAC Singapore Pte, Ltd (“AMVAC Sgpr”), Huifeng AMVAC Innovation Co. Limited (“Hong Kong JV”), OHP Inc. (“OHP”) and Grupo AgriCenter (including the parent AgriCenter S.A. and its subsidiaries (“AgriCenter”)).

Based on similar economic and operational characteristics, the Company’s business is aggregated into one reportable segment. Refer to Part II, Item 7 for selective enterprise information.

AVD operates its business through its principle operating subsidiaries including AMVAC for its domestic business and AMVAC BV for its international business.

AMVAC is a California corporation that traces its history from 1945 and is a specialty chemical manufacturer that develops and markets products for agricultural, commercial and consumer uses. It manufactures and formulates chemicals for crops, turf and ornamental plants, and human and animal health protection. These chemicals, which include insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, molluscicides, growth regulators, and soil fumigants, are marketed in liquid, powder, and granular forms. In prior years, AMVAC considered itself a distributor-formulator, but now AMVAC primarily synthesizes, formulates, and distributes its own proprietary products or custom manufactures, formulates or distributes for others. In addition, the Company has carved out a leadership position in closed delivery systems, currently offers certain of its products in SmartBox, Lock ‘n Load and EZ Load systems, and is developing a precision application technology known as SIMPAS (see “Intellectual Property” below) which will permit the delivery of multiple products (from AMVAC and/or other companies) at variable rates in a single pass.  AMVAC has historically expanded its business through both the acquisition of established chemistries (which it has revived in the marketplace), the development and commercialization of new formulations or compounds through licensing arrangements and by expanding our distribution network to gain market access.

AMVAC BV is a Netherlands Corporation that was established in 2012 and is based in Houton, near Amsterdam in the Netherlands. AMVAC BV sells product through sales based subsidiaries in various international territories.

Below is a description of the Company’s acquisition/licensing activity over the past five years.

On December 28, 2018, the Company’s international subsidiary AMVAC BV completed the purchase of certain assets related to the quizalofop product family from E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Quizalofop is an herbicide marketed under the name Assure II for use on canola, soybeans and pulse (among other things) in Canada and the United States. This transaction includes acquisition of registrations, registration data, trademarks, inventory, commercial sales information, and the transfer of existing product supply arrangements.

2

---

On December 14, 2018, AMVAC completed the purchase of certain assets related to the trichlorfon product family from Bayer AG and Bayer CropScience AG (“Bayer”). Trichlorfon is an insecticide marketed under the name Dylox in turf, ornamental and other markets. This transaction includes registrations, trademarks and manufacturing know-how. AMVAC will manufacture and supply formulated end use products to Bayer for the latter’s distribution.

On November 9, 2018, AMVAC completed the purchase of all of the outstanding shares of TyraTech, Inc. and, in the process, delisted TyraTech from the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. TyraTech develops non-toxic insecticides and green solutions for pest control. Their patented technology platform leverages synergistic essential oil combinations to target invertebrate pest receptors that are not active in humans and other mammals.

On June 20, 2018, AMVAC completed the purchase of certain intangible assets related to the Bromacil product family and included end use registrations in the United States. The assets were purchased from Bayer AG. From June 20, 2018 until October 25, 2018, Bayer continued to act as the Company’s agent in the market place. Bromacil is a broad spectrum residual herbicide used for non-agricultural industrial vegetation control and on many crops such as pineapples, citrus, agave and asparagus. Marketed under the Hyvar^® and Krovar^® brands, Bromacil herbicides are valued and long established weed control tools. AMVAC previously purchased these brands from DuPont Crop Protection in 2015 for markets outside of US and Canada including Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Cost Rica and Brazil.

On October 27, 2017, the Company’s Netherlands-based subsidiary, AMVAC BV, completed the purchase of AgriCenter S.A., a distribution company based in Costa Rica. AgriCenter markets and distributes end-use chemical and biological products throughout Central America, primarily for crop applications. The acquired assets included product registration, trade names and trademarks, customer lists, personnel, fixed assets, goodwill and working capital.

On October 2, 2017, AMVAC acquired substantially all of the assets of OHP, a US-based distribution company specializing in the greenhouse and nursery production markets. The acquired assets included existing product rights, trade names, customer relationships, personnel, goodwill, fixed assets and working capital.

On August 22, 2017, AMVAC BV, completed the acquisition of certain selective herbicides and contact fungicides including chlorothanonil, ametryn, and isopyrazam, sold in the Mexican agricultural market. The assets were purchased from Syngenta AG and used on various crops such as sugarcane, tomatoes, potatoes and hot peppers. The acquired assets included product registrations, trademarks and trade names, customer lists, and associated inventory.  

On June 6, 2017, AMVAC, completed an acquisition of certain herbicides, fungicides and insecticides assets relating to the abamectin, chlorothalonil and paraquat product lines from a group of companies, including Adama Agricultural Solutions, Ltd. These products are used on a wide range of crops such as citrus, cotton, nuts, fruits and vegetables.  The acquired assets included product registrations, trademarks and trade names, customer lists, and associated inventory.

On January 13, 2017, AMVAC acquired from The Andersons, Inc. certain assets relating to proprietary formulations containing PCNB, chlorothalonil and propiconazole which are marketed under the name FFII and FFIII. The acquired assets included end use registrations.  

On June 27, 2017, both AMVAC BV and Huifeng made individual capital contributions of $950 to the Hong Kong JV. On July 7, 2017, the Hong Kong JV purchased 100% of the shares of Profeng Australia Pty Ltd. (“Profeng”), for a total consideration of $1,900.

On February 29, 2016, AMVAC BV purchased shares constituting a 15% interest in BiPA NV/SA, a Belgian company specializing in the development and early commercialization of biological products for use in agriculture. Through this investment, AMVAC BV obtained possible future access to a pipeline of new biological products for potential commercialization either individually in certain territories or in combination with the Company’s existing product portfolio.

Seasonality

The agricultural chemical industry, in general, is cyclical in nature. The demand for AVD’s products tends to be seasonal. Seasonal usage, however, does not necessarily follow calendar dates, but more closely follows varying growing seasonal patterns, weather conditions, geography, weather related pressure from pests and customer marketing programs.

Backlog

AVD does not believe that backlog is a significant factor in its business. The Company primarily sells its products on the basis of purchase orders, although from time to time it has entered into requirements contracts with certain customers.

3

---

Customers

The Company’s largest three customers accounted for 12%, 9% and 8% of the Company’s sales in 2018; 13%, 10% and 10% in 2017; and 15%, 11% and 8% in 2016.

Distribution

AVD manages its US business through its principal operating subsidiary, AMVAC. AMVAC predominantly distributes its products domestically through national distribution companies and buying groups or co-operatives, which purchase AMVAC’s goods on a purchase order basis and, in turn, sell them to retailers/growers/end-users. AVD manages its international sales through AMVAC BV, which has sales offices in Mexico, Costa Rica and several other countries in Central America, and sales force executives, sales agents or wholly owned distributors in other territories. The Company’s domestic and international distributors, agents and customers typically have long-established relationships with retailers/end-users, far-reaching logistics, transportation capabilities and/or customer service expertise. The markets for AVD products vary by region, target crop, use and type of distribution channel. AVD’s customers are experts at addressing these various markets.

Competition

In its many marketplaces, AVD faces competition from both domestic and foreign manufacturers. Many of our competitors are larger and have substantially greater financial and technical resources than AVD. AVD’s capacity to compete depends on its ability to develop additional applications for its current products and/or expand its product lines and customer base. AVD competes principally on the basis of the quality and efficacy of its products, price and the technical service and support given to its customers.

Generally, the treatment against pests of any kind is broad in scope, there being more than one way, or one product, for treatment, eradication, or suppression. In some cases, AVD has positioned itself in smaller niche markets, which are no longer addressed by larger companies. In other cases, for example in the Midwest corn market, the Company competes directly with larger competitors.

Manufacturing

Through its four domestic manufacturing facilities (see Item 2, Properties), AVD synthesizes many of the technical grade active ingredients that are in its end-use products. Further, the Company formulates and packages its end use products at its own facilities or at the facilities of third-party formulators.

Raw Materials

AVD utilizes numerous companies to supply the various raw materials and components used in manufacturing its products. Many of these materials are readily available from domestic sources. In those instances where there is a single source of supply or where the source is not domestic, AVD seeks to secure its supply by either long-term (multi-year) arrangements or purchasing on long lead times from its suppliers.

Intellectual Property

AVD’s proprietary product formulations are protected, to the extent possible, as trade secrets and, to a lesser extent, by patents. Certain of the Company’s closed delivery systems are patented and the Company has made applications for related inventions to expand its equipment portfolio, particularly with respect to its Smart Integrated Multi-Product Precision Application System, (“SIMPAS”) technology. Further, AVD’s trademarks bring value to its products in both domestic and foreign markets. AVD considers that, in the aggregate, its trademarks, licenses, and patents constitute a valuable asset. While it does not regard its current business as being materially dependent upon any single trademark, license, or patent, it believes that patents will play an increasingly important role in its developmental equipment technology in future years.

4

---

EPA Registrations

In the United States, AVD’s products also receive protection afforded by the terms of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) legislation. The legislation makes it unlawful to sell any pesticide in the United States, unless such pesticide has first been registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”). Substantially all of the Company’s products, sold in United States, are subject to USEPA registration and periodic re-registration requirements and are registered in accordance with FIFRA. This registration by USEPA is based, among other things, on data demonstrating that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, when used according to approved label directions. In addition, each state requires a specific registration before any of AVD’s products can be marketed, or used in that state. State registrations are predominantly renewed annually with a smaller number of registrations that are renewed on a multiple year basis. Foreign jurisdictions typically have similar registration requirements by statute.

The USEPA, state, and foreign agencies have required, and may require in the future, that certain scientific data requirements be performed on registered products sold by AVD. AVD, on its own behalf and in joint efforts with other registrants, has furnished, and is currently furnishing, required data relative to specific products. Under FIFRA, the federal government requires registrants to submit a wide range of scientific data to support U.S. registrations. This requirement results in operating expenses in such areas as regulatory compliance, with USEPA and other such bodies in the markets in which the Company sells its products. In addition, the Company is required to generate new formulations of existing products or to produce new products in order to remain compliant. The Company expensed $16,047, $14,232 and $11,544, during 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively, on these activities.

 

 

Environmental

During 2018, AMVAC continued activities to address environmental issues associated with its facility in Commerce, CA. (the “Facility”). An outline of the history of those activities follows.

In 1995, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) Facility Assessment (“RFA”) of those facilities having hazardous waste storage permits. In March 1997, the RFA culminated in DTSC accepting the Facility into its Expedited Remedial Action Program. Under this program, the Facility was required to conduct an environmental investigation and health risk assessment.   This activity then took two paths: first, the RCRA permit closure and second, the larger site characterization.

With respect to the RCRA permit closure, in 1998, AMVAC began the formal process to close its hazardous waste permit at the Facility (which had allowed AMVAC to store hazardous waste longer than 90 days) as required by federal regulations. Formal regulatory closure actions began in 2005 and were completed in 2008, as evidenced by DTSC’s October 1, 2008 acknowledgement of AMVAC’s Closure Certification Report.

With respect to the larger site characterization, soil and groundwater characterization activities began in December 2002 in accordance with the Site Investigation Plan that was approved by DTSC. Additional activities were conducted from 2003 to 2014, with oversight provided by DTSC. In 2014, the Company submitted a remedial action plan (“RAP”) to DTSC, under the provisions of which, the Company proposed not to disturb sub-surface contaminants, but to continue monitoring, maintain the cover above affected soil, enter into restrictive covenants regarding the potential use of the property in the future, and provide financial assurances relating to the requirements of the RAP.  In January 2017, the RAP was circulated for public comment.  DTSC responded to those comments and, on September 29, 2017, approved the RAP as submitted by the Company. The Company intends to prepare an operation and maintenance plan, to record covenants on certain affected parcels and to obtain further clarification on financial assurance obligations relating to the RAP.  At this stage, the Company does not believe that costs to be incurred in connection with the RAP will be material.

AMVAC is subject to numerous federal and state laws and governmental regulations concerning environmental matters and employee health and safety at its four manufacturing facilities. The Company continually adapts its manufacturing process to the environmental control standards of the various regulatory agencies. The USEPA and other federal and state agencies have the authority to promulgate regulations that could have an impact on the Company’s operations.

5

---

AMVAC expends substantial funds to minimize the risk of discharge of materials in the environment and to comply with the governmental regulations relating to protection of the environment. Wherever feasible, AMVAC recovers and recycles raw materials and increases product yield in order to partially offset increasing pollution abatement costs.

The Company is committed to a long-term environmental protection program that reduces emissions of hazardous materials into the environment, as well as to the remediation of identified existing environmental concerns.

Employees

As of December 31, 2018, the Company employed 624 employees.  The Company employed 605 employees as of December 31, 2017 and 395 employees as of December 31, 2016. From time to time, due to the seasonality of its business, AVD uses temporary contract personnel to perform certain duties primarily related to packaging of its products. None of the Company’s employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. The Company believes it maintains positive relations with its employees.

Domestic operations

AMVAC is a California corporation that was incorporated under the name of Durham Chemical in August 1945. The name of the corporation was subsequently changed to AMVAC in January 1971. As the Company’s main operating subsidiary, AMVAC owns and/or operates the Company’s domestic manufacturing facilities and is also the parent company (owns 99%) of AMVAC CV. AMVAC manufactures, formulates, packages and sells its products in the USA and is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

GemChem is a California corporation that was incorporated in 1991 and was subsequently purchased by the Company in 1994. GemChem sells into the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutritional markets, in addition to purchasing key raw materials for the Company. GemChem is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

DAVIE owns real estate for corporate use only. See also Part I, Item 2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. DAVIE is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

Envance is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and is a majority owned subsidiary of the Company.  It was formed in 2012 with joint venture partner, TyraTech.  AMVAC’s initial shareholding was 60% and its shareholding increased to 87% in 2015. On November 8, 2018, the Company acquired TyraTech which was previously the minority shareholder in Envance. As of November 9, 2018, the Company owned 100% of Envance. Envance has the rights to develop and commercialize pesticide products and technologies made from natural oils in global consumer, commercial, professional, crop protection and seed treatment markets and has begun bringing products to market.

On October 2, 2017, AMVAC, through a wholly-owned acquisition subsidiary, subsequently renamed OHP, purchased substantially all of the assets of OHP, a domestic distribution company specializing in products for the turf and ornamental market. OHP markets and sells end use products for third parties, either under the third party brand or else as own label products.

As noted above, on November 8, 2018, the Company acquired the remaining 65.62% of the shares of TyraTech Inc. and, as a result, TyraTech became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company from November 9, 2018.

International operations

In July 2012, the Company formed AMVAC CV, which is incorporated in the Netherlands, for the purpose of managing foreign sales on behalf of the Company. AMVAC CV is owned jointly by AMVAC as the general partner, and AVD International, LLC (also formed in July 2012 as a wholly owned subsidiary of AMVAC), as the limited partner, and is therefore a wholly owned subsidiary of AMVAC.

AMVAC BV is a registered Dutch private limited liability company that was formed in July 2012. AMVAC BV is located in the Netherlands and is wholly owned by AMVAC CV. During 2018, the international business sold the Company’s products in 54 countries, as compared to 63 countries in 2017.

6

---

AMVAC M is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMVAC BV and was originally formed in 1998 (as Quimica Amvac de Mexico S.A. de C.V and subsequently changed to AMVAC Mexico Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada “AMVAC M”) to conduct the Company’s business in Mexico.  

AMVAC Sgpr is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMVAC BV and was formed on April 12, 2016. This new entity was formed to conduct the Company’s business in the Asia Pacific and China region.

Hong Kong JV is a 50% owned joint venture with Huifeng (Hong Kong) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Huifeng Agrochemical Company, Ltd, (“Huifeng”) a China based basic chemical manufacturer. The Hong Kong JV was formed on August 2, 2016. The purpose of the joint venture is to be a technology transfer platform between the co-owners, including the development of proprietary agrochemical formulations and precision application systems for crop protection. Furthermore, it is intended to be used to develop both partners’ business in the region. This included, in 2017, the acquisition of 100% of the shares of Profeng.

On October 27, 2017, AMVAC BV purchased 100% of the stock of AgriCenter, located in Costa Rica, which owned shares in subsidiaries located in Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. These affiliated entities, collectively known as AgriCenter, market, sell and distribute end-use chemical and biological products throughout Central America primarily for crop applications.

The Company classifies as international sales all products bearing foreign labeling shipped to a foreign destination.

 

 

Risk Management

The Company regularly monitors matters, whether insurable or not, that could pose material risk to its operations, the safety of its employees and neighbors, and its financial performance. The Risk Committee of the Board of Directors (“Board”) was formed in 2010, consists of three members of the Board and meets regularly. All members of the Board are invited to and typically attend Risk Committee meetings. Working with senior management, the committee continuously evaluates the Company’s risk profile, identifies mitigation measures and ensures that the Company is prudently managing these risks. In support of the Risk Committee, senior management has appointed a risk manager and designated several senior executives to lead teams focused on addressing each of the most material risks facing the Company; these groups perform analysis with the benefit of operational knowledge. The top risks identified by management and being addressed by risk teams (in no particular order) include: adverse political and regulatory climate; managing inventory and optimizing manufacturing efficiency; succession planning and bench strength; maintaining a competitive edge in the marketplace; the possibility of an environmental event; undervaluation of the Company; availability of acquisition and licensing targets and cyber-terrorism. In addition, the Company continually evaluates insurance levels for product liability, property damage and other potential areas of risk. Management believes its facilities and equipment are adequately insured against loss from usual business risks including cyber-terrorism.

Available Information

The Company makes available free of charge (through its website, www.american-vanguard.com), its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). All reports filed with the SEC are available free of charge on the SEC website, www.sec.gov. Also available free of charge on the Company’s website are the Company’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Finance Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charters, the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Company’s Code of Conduct and Ethics, the Company’s Employee Complaint Procedures for Accounting and Auditing Matters and the Company’s policy on Stockholder Nomination and Communication. The Company’s Internet website and the information contained therein or incorporated therein are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

7

---

The regulatory climate remains challenging to the Company’s interests both domestically and internationally—Various agencies within the U.S. (both federal and state) and foreign governments continue to exercise increased scrutiny in permitting continued uses (or the expansion of such uses) of may chemistries, including many of the Company’s products and, in some cases, have initiated or entertained challenges to these uses. The challenge of the regulatory climate is more pronounced in certain geographical regions (outside the United States) where the Company faces resistance to the continued use of certain of its products. For example, the EU employs a hazard-based analysis when considering whether product registrations can be maintained; under this approach, EU regulatory authorities typically do not weigh benefit against risk in their assessments and routinely cancel products for which a safer alternative is available, notwithstanding the benefit of the cancelled product.  There is no guarantee that this regulatory climate will change in the near term or that the Company will be able to maintain or expand the uses of many of its products in the face of such regulatory challenges.

USEPA has proposed further limitations on the continued registration of organophosphates— In September 2015, the USEPA published in the Federal Register a memorandum entitled, “Literature Review on Neurodevelopmental Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides,” in which it adopted a position recommending the application of a 10X safety factor under the FQPA (Food Quality Protection Act) in light of the alleged possibility of neurodevelopmental harm to women and children based on epidemiological data. Since that time, in the face of objection from industry, the agency has applied this safety factor to all registered OPs, including those owned by the Company, as they have come up for review or renewal. The Company, like many in our industry, believes that applying this safety factor is not based upon sound science and that the limited studies upon which the agency is relying (for which raw data is not available even to the agency) do not establish a causal link between the perceived harm and the use of its products. Accordingly, the Company intends to take all action necessary to defend its registrations. We have been joined in this effort by other companies that are similarly concerned about the potential impact of USEPA’s action. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that the Company’s actions will alter the course that USEPA has proposed and, if the agency’s position becomes final, some uses of the company’s OP products could be limited or cancelled. Such action could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial performance in future reporting periods.

Use of the Company’s products is subject to continuing challenges from activist groups—Use of agrochemical products, including the Company’s products, is regularly challenged by activist groups in many jurisdictions under a multitude of federal, state and foreign statutes, including FIFRA, the Food Quality Protection Act, Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Clean Water Act, to name a few. These challenges typically take the form of lawsuits or administrative proceedings against the USEPA and/or other federal, state or foreign agencies, the filing of amicus briefs in pending actions, the introduction of legislation that is inimical to the Company’s interests, and/or adverse comments made in response to public comment invited by regulatory agencies in the course of registration, re-registration or label expansion. The most prominent of these actions include a line of cases under which environmental groups have sought to suspend, cancel or otherwise restrict the use of pesticides that have been approved by USEPA on the ground that that agency failed to confer with the National Marine Fishery Service and/or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the ESA with respect to biological opinions relating to the use of such products.  While industry has been active in defending registrations and proposing administrative and legislative approaches to address serious resource issues at the affected agencies, these cases continue to be brought.  It is possible that one or more of these challenges could succeed, resulting in a material adverse effect upon one or more of the Company’s products.

The distribution and sale of the Company’s products are subject to prior governmental approvals and thereafter ongoing governmental regulation—The Company’s products are subject to laws administered by federal, state and foreign governments, including regulations requiring registration, approval and labeling of its products. The labeling requirements restrict the use of, and type of, application for our products. More stringent restrictions could make our products less available, which would adversely affect our revenues and profitability. Substantially all of the Company’s products are subject to the USEPA (and/or similar agencies in the various territories or jurisdictions in which we do business) registration and re-registration requirements, and are registered in accordance with FIFRA or similar laws. Such registration requirements are based, among other things, on data demonstrating that the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment when used according to approved label directions. All states, where any of the Company’s products are used, also require registration before products, such as the Company sells, can be marketed or used in that state. Governmental regulatory authorities have required, and may require in the future, that certain scientific data requirements be performed on the Company’s products. The Company, on its behalf and also in joint efforts with other registrants, has and is currently furnishing certain required data relative to its products. There can be no assurance, however, that the USEPA or similar agencies will not request that certain tests or studies be repeated or that more stringent legislation or requirements will not be imposed in the future. The Company can provide no assurance that any testing approvals or registrations will be granted on a timely basis, if at all, or that its resources will be adequate to meet the costs of regulatory compliance.

8

---

The manufacturing of the Company’s products is subject to governmental regulations—The Company currently owns and operates three manufacturing facilities which are located in Los Angeles, California; Axis, Alabama; and Marsing, Idaho and owns and has manufacturing services provided in a fourth facility in Hannibal, Missouri (the “Facilities”). The Facilities operate under the laws and regulations imposed by relevant state and local authorities. The manufacturing of key ingredients for certain of the Company’s products occurs at the Facilities. An inability to renew or maintain a license or permit, or a significant increase in the fees for such licenses or permits, could impede the Company’s manufacture of one or more of its products and/or increase the cost of production; this, in turn, would materially and adversely affect the Company’s ability to provide customers with its products in a timely and affordable manner.

The Company may be subject to environmental liabilities—While the Company is fully committed toward minimizing the risk of discharge of materials into the environment and to complying with governmental regulations relating to protection of the environment, its neighbors and its workforce. Nevertheless, federal and state authorities may seek fines and penalties for any violation of the various laws and governmental regulations. In addition, while the Company continually adapts its manufacturing processes to the environmental control standards of regulatory authorities, it cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from hazardous or regulated materials. Further, these various governmental agencies could, among other things, impose potential civil and criminal liability arising under RCRA for the Company’s importation (transportation, handling, and storage) of depleted Thimet containers (see, “Legal Proceedings” below). In short, the Company may be held liable for significant damages or fines relating to any environmental contamination, injury, or compliance violation which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, statements of operations and cash flows.

Tariff Activity—Over the course of the past several months, the U.S. and China have imposed a series of retaliatory tariffs against one another in respect of various products, ranging from metals to grains to chemicals. To date, the Company has not been materially adversely affected by these tariffs. However, it is not always possible to predict which products could be targeted by either nation, nor is it possible to predict the size or duration of any given tariff. It is possible that either the U.S. or China could place tariffs on one or more products that would cause either a disruption in the markets of the Company’s customers or an increase in the Company’s cost of goods which, either individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s operations or financial performance.    

The Company is dependent upon sole source suppliers for certain of its raw materials and active ingredients—There are a limited number of suppliers of certain important raw materials used by the Company in a number of its products. Certain of these raw materials are available solely from single sources either domestically or overseas. Starting January 1, 2017, the Chinese government began placing significant restrictions on chemical manufacturing in the People's Republic of China.  This, in turn, has led to closure of multiple manufacturing plants and scarcity of supply for certain products that are imported by the Company. In conjunction with the purchase and/or licensing of certain product lines, the Company has entered into multi-year supply arrangements under which such counterparties are the sole source of either active ingredients and/or formulated end-use product, and in some cases, the manufacturer has entered the market as a competitor. The Company is actively pursuing new supply agreements to mitigate the risk of product supply from the People’s Republic of China, by either approving new suppliers outside of China, or conversely by pursuing new Chinese suppliers who have a stronger in situ backward integration position. There is no guarantee that any of our suppliers will be willing or able to supply these products to the Company reliably, continuously and at the levels anticipated by the Company or required by the market. If these sources prove to be unreliable and the Company is not able to supplant or otherwise second source these suppliers, it is possible that the Company will not realize its projected sales which, in turn, could adversely affect the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Newly acquired businesses or product lines may not generate forecasted results—While the Company conducts due diligence on acquisitions and employs rigorous investment criteria before making acquisitions, there is no guarantee that a business or product line acquired by the Company will generate results that meet or exceed results that were forecasted by the Company in evaluating the acquisition. There are many factors that could affect the performance of a newly acquired business or product line. While the Company uses conservative assumptions in valuing a business or product line prior to concluding an acquisition, actual results generated post-closing could vary widely from the Company’s forecast and, as such, could have a material effect upon the Company’s overall financial performance.

9

---

The Company’s investment in foreign businesses may pose additional risks—With the expansion of its footprint internationally and, in particular, with the business acquired in Central America in 2017 and Brazil in 2018, the Company now carries on business at a material level in some jurisdictions that have a history of political or economic instability. While such instability may not be present at the current time, there is no guarantee that conditions will not change in one or more jurisdictions quickly and without notice, nor is there any guarantee that the Company would be able to recoup its investment in such territories in light of such changes. Adverse changes of this nature could have a material effect upon the Company’s overall financial performance.

The Company’s investment in technology may not generate forecasted returns—The Company has had a history of investing in technological innovation primarily focused on product delivery systems as one of its core strategies. We have focused on technology in closed delivery systems, fumigant application and precision application, to name a few. These investments are based upon the premise that new technology will allow for safer handling of the Company’s products, appeal to regulatory agencies and the market we serve, gain commercial acceptance and command a return that is sufficiently in excess of the investment. However, there is no guarantee that a new technology will be successfully commercialized, generate a material return or maintain market appeal for a substantial period of time. Further, many types of development costs must be expensed in the period in which they are incurred. This, in turn, tends to put downward pressure on period profitability. There can be no assurance that these expenses will be recovered through successful commercialization of a new technology.

The Company’s business may be adversely affected by cyclical and seasonal effects—Demand for the Company’s products tends to be seasonal. Seasonal usage follows varying agricultural seasonal patterns, weather conditions and weather related pressure from pests. Weather patterns can have an impact on the Company’s operations. For example, the end user of its products may, because of weather patterns, delay or intermittently disrupt field work during the planting season, which may result in a reduction of the use of some products and therefore may, at some point, reduce the Company’s revenues and profitability. In light of the possibility of adverse seasonal effects, there can be no assurance that the Company will maintain sales performance at historical levels in any particular region.

To the extent that capacity utilization is not fully realized at its manufacturing facilities, the Company may experience lower profitability—While the Company endeavors continuously to maximize utilization of it manufacturing facilities, our success in these endeavors is dependent upon many factors, including fluctuating market conditions, product life cycles, weather conditions, availability of raw materials, equipment failures, and regulatory constraints, among other things. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maximize the utilization of capacity at its manufacturing facilities.

The Company’s continued success depends, in part, upon a limited number of key employees—Within certain functions, the Company relies heavily on a small number of key employees to manage ongoing operations and to perform strategic planning. In some cases, there are no internal candidates who are qualified to succeed these key personnel in the short term. In the event that the Company were to lose one or more key employees, there is no guarantee that Company could replace them with people having comparable skills. Further, the loss of key personnel could adversely affect the operation of our business.

The Company faces competition in certain markets from new technologies and demand for organically produced food—The Company faces competition from larger companies that market new chemistries, genetically modified (“GMO”) seeds and other similar technologies (e.g., RNA interference) in certain of the crop protection sectors in which the Company competes, particularly that of corn. In fact, many growers that have chosen to use GMO seeds have reduced their use of the types of pesticides sold by the Company. There is no guarantee that the Company will maintain its market share or pricing levels in sectors that are subject to competition from companies that market new technologies. Further, it is possible that increased demand for organic crops may, over time, reduce the demand for the Company’s products.

The Company faces competition from generic competitors that source product from countries having lower cost structures—The Company continues to face competition from competitors around the globe that may enter the market through either offers to pay data compensation, or similar means in foreign jurisdictions, and then subsequently source material from countries having lower cost structures (typically India and China). These competitors typically tend to operate at thinner gross margins and, with low costs of goods, tend to drive pricing and profitability of subject product lines downward. There is no guarantee that the Company will maintain market share and pricing when facing such generic competitors, or that such competitors will not offer generic versions of the Company’s products in the future.

10

---

The Company’s key customers typically carry competing product lines and may be influenced by the Company’s larger competitors—A significant portion of the Company’s products are sold to national distributors in the United States, which also carry product lines of competitors that are much larger than the Company. Typically, revenues from the sales of these competing product lines and related program incentives constitute a greater part of our distributors’ income than do revenues from sales and program incentives arising from the Company’s product lines. With the recent consolidation among domestic distribution companies, these considerations have become more pronounced. In light of these facts, there is no assurance that such customers will continue to market our products aggressively or successfully or that the Company will be able to influence such customers to continue to purchase our products instead of those of our competitors.

Industry consolidation may threaten the Company’s position in various markets—The global agricultural chemical industry continues to undergo significant consolidation. Many of the Company’s competitors have grown or are expected to grow through mergers and acquisitions. As a result, these competitors will tend to be in position to realize greater economies of scale, offer more diverse portfolios and thereby exert greater influence throughout the distribution channels. Consequently, the Company may find it more difficult to compete in various markets. While such merger activity may generate acquisition opportunities for the Company, there is no guarantee that the Company will benefit from such opportunities. Further, there is a risk that the Company’s future performance may be hindered by the growth of its competitors through consolidation.

The Company is dependent on a limited number of customers, which makes it vulnerable to the continued relationship with and financial health of those customers—In 2018, 2017 and 2016, three customers accounted for 29%, 33% and 34%, respectively, of the Company’s sales. The Company’s future prospects may depend on the continued business of such customers and on our continued status as a qualified supplier to such customers. The Company cannot guarantee that these key customers will continue to buy products from us at current levels. The loss of a key customer could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The carrying value of certain assets on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets may be subject to impairment depending upon market trends and other factors—The Company regularly reviews the carrying value of certain assets, including long-lived assets, inventory, fixed assets and intangibles. Depending upon the class of assets in question, the Company takes into account various factors including, among others, sales, trends, market conditions, cash flows, profit margins and the like. Based upon this analysis, where circumstances warrant the Company may leave such carrying values unchanged or adjust them as appropriate. There is no guarantee that these carrying values can be maintained indefinitely, and it is possible that one or more such assets could be subject to impairment which, in turn, could have an adverse impact upon the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company’s computing systems are subject to cyber security risks – In the course of its operations the Company relies on its computing systems, including access to the internet, the use of third party applications and the storage and transmission of data through such systems. While the Company has implemented security measures to protect these systems, there is no guarantee that a third party will not penetrate these defenses and either compromise, corrupt or shut down these systems. Further, in the event of such incursion it is possible that confidential business information and private personal data could be taken. Such an event could adversely affect both the Company’s ability to operate, its reputation with key stakeholders and its overall financial performance

Reduced financial performance may limit the Company’s ability to borrow under its credit facility—The Company has historically grown net sales and net income through both expansion of current product lines, the acquisition of product lines from third parties and the acquisition of both domestic and international distributors with strong niche market positions. In order to finance such acquisitions, the Company has drawn upon its senior credit facility. However, the Company’s borrowing capacity under the senior credit facility depends, in part, upon its satisfaction of a negative covenant that sets a maximum ratio of borrowed debt to earnings (as measured over the trailing 12-month period). There is no guarantee that the Company will continue to generate earnings necessary to ensure that it has sufficient borrowing capacity to support future acquisitions or that, when necessary, the lender group will amend the senior credit facility to provide for such borrowing capacity. Further, despite the Company’s long-standing relationship with its lenders, in light of the uncertainties in global financial markets there is no guarantee that the Company’s lenders will be either willing or able to continue lending to the Company at such rates and in such amounts as may be necessary to meet the Company’s working capital needs.

The Company’s growth has been fueled in part by acquisitions—Over the past few decades, the Company’s growth has been driven by acquisitions and licensing of both established and developmental products from third parties. There is no guarantee that acquisition targets or licensing opportunities meeting the Company’s investment criteria will remain available or will be affordable. If such opportunities do not present themselves, then the Company may be unable to record consistent growth in future years.

11

---

The Company is subject to taxation related risks in multiple jurisdictions—The Company is a U.S. based multinational company subject to tax in multiple U.S. and foreign tax jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our global provision for income taxes, deferred tax assets or liabilities and in evaluating our tax positions on a worldwide basis. While we believe our tax positions are consistent with the tax laws in the jurisdictions in which we conduct our business, it is possible that these positions may be contested or overturned by jurisdictional tax authorities, which may have a significant impact on our global provision for income taxes. Tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. The U.S. recently enacted significant tax reform, and certain provisions of the new law may adversely affect us. In addition, governmental tax authorities are increasingly scrutinizing the tax positions of companies. Many countries in the European Union, as well as a number of other countries and organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, are actively considering changes to existing tax laws that, if enacted, could increase our tax obligations in countries where we do business. If U.S. or other foreign tax authorities change applicable tax laws, our overall taxes could increase, and our business, financial condition or results of operations may be adversely impacted.

The Company is subject to adverse impact from the United Kingdom’s decision to end its membership in the European Union—In June 2016, a majority of voters in the United Kingdom elected to withdraw from the European Union (“EU”) in a national referendum (“BREXIT”). The results of the United Kingdom’s BREXIT has caused, and may continue to cause, volatility in global stock markets, currency exchange rate fluctuations and global economic uncertainty. Although it is unknown what the terms of the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU will be, it is possible that there will be higher tariffs or greater restrictions on imports and exports between the United Kingdom and the EU and increased regulatory complexities. The effects of BREXIT could potentially impact the Company’s operations primarily in mainland Europe, including financial, legal, tax, and trade.  

None

AMVAC owns in fee the Facility constituting approximately 152,000 square feet of improved land in Commerce, California (“Commerce”) on which its West Coast manufacturing, some of its warehouse facilities and some of its manufacturing administrative offices are located.

DAVIE owns in fee approximately 72,000 square feet of warehouse, office and laboratory space on approximately 118,000 square feet of land in Commerce, California, which is leased to AMVAC. In 2013, the Company made a significant investment in the Glenn A. Wintemute Research Center, which houses the Company’s primary research laboratory supporting synthesis, formulation and other new product endeavors.

On December 28, 2007, AMVAC purchased certain manufacturing assets relating to the production of Thimet and Counter and located at BASF’s multi-plant facility situated in Hannibal, Missouri (the “Hannibal Site”). Subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, AMVAC purchased certain buildings, manufacturing equipment, office equipment, fixtures, supplies, records, raw materials, intermediates and packaging constituting the “T/C Unit” of the Hannibal Site. The parties entered into a ground lease and a manufacturing and shared services agreement, under which BASF continues to supply various shared services to AMVAC for the Hannibal Site.

On March 7, 2008, AMVAC acquired from Bayer CropScience Limited Partnership, (“BCS LP”), a U.S. business of Bayer CropScience GmbH, a facility (the “Marsing Facility”) located in Marsing, ID, which consists of approximately 17 acres of improved real property. The Marsing Facility is engaged in the blending of liquid and powder raw materials and the packaging of some of the Company’s finished goods inventory in liquid, powder and pelletized formulations which are sold both in the US and internationally.  

In 2001, AMVAC completed the acquisition of a manufacturing facility (the “Axis Facility”) from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”). The Axis Facility is one of three such units located on DuPont’s 510 acre complex in Axis, Alabama. The acquisition consisted of a long-term ground lease of 25 acres and the purchase of all improvements thereon. The facility is a multi-purpose plant designed for synthesis of active ingredients and formulation and packaging of finished products. In 2018, FMC Corporation acquired from DuPont a business unit which held, among other things, the Axis Facility. At present, AMVAC is negotiating new terms and conditions for the lease.

12

---

AVD regularly adds chemical processing equipment to enhance or expand its production capabilities. The Company believes its facilities are in good operating condition, are suitable and adequate for current needs, have flexibility to change products, and can produce at greater rates as required. Facilities and equipment are insured against losses from fire as well as other usual business risks. The Company knows of no material defects in title to, or encumbrances on, any of its properties except that substantially all of the Company’s assets are pledged as collateral under the Company’s credit facility agreements with its primary lender group. For further information, refer to note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part IV, Item 15 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

AVD owns approximately 42 acres of unimproved land in Texas for possible future expansion.

The Company leases approximately 19,953 square feet of office space located at 4695 MacArthur Court in Newport Beach, California. In September 2015 the lease was amended and was extended to expire on June 30, 2021. The premises have served as the Company’s corporate headquarters since 1994.

AMVAC BV’s, GemChem’s, AMVAC M’s, AMVAC CR Srl’s, AMVAC Sgpr’s, OHP’s and AgriCenter’s facilities consist of administration and/or sales offices which are leased.

A. 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 AVD 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 it.

At present, there are three domestic lawsuits and approximately 85 Nicaraguan lawsuits filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Only two of the Nicaraguan actions have actually been served on AMVAC. With respect to Nicaraguan matters, there was no change in status during 2018. As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2018 is as follows. The one case remaining in Delaware includes 57 plaintiffs who have appealed a lower court finding that the matter was barred by the statute of limitations; this matter has been remanded to the trial court, following a ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court on recognizing the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional tolling. In Hawaii, in the matter of Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, the parties have stipulated that the Company shall be dismissed, insofar as it was not a party to the class action case that tolled the statute of limitations. In Adams (also in Hawai’i), there has been no activity since 2014, when the court granted dismissal of co-defendant Dole on the basis of a worker’s compensation bar and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint in light of that ruling. Finally, plaintiffs in Chaverri, which had been dismissed by the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in 2012 for failure to meet the applicable statute of limitations, have brought a motion to vacate the dismissal on the ground that the matter should be subject to trial on the merits under the principle of cross-jurisdictional tolling.

Nicaraguan Matters

A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, has found 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. All but one of the suits in Nicaragua have been filed pursuant to Special Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute that contains substantive and procedural provisions that Nicaragua’s Attorney General previously expressed as unconstitutional. Each of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs’ claims $1,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In all of these cases, AMVAC is a joint defendant with Dow Chemical Company and Dole Food Company, Inc. AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364 violates international due process of law. AMVAC has objected to personal jurisdiction and demanded under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. In 2007, the court denied these objections, and AMVAC appealed the denial. It is not presently known as to how many of these plaintiffs actually claim exposure to DBCP at the time AMVAC’s product was allegedly used nor is there any verification of the claimed injuries. Further, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. With respect to these Nicaraguan matters, AMVAC intends to defend any claim 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.

13

---

Delaware DBCP Cases

Abad Castillo and Marquinez.  On or about May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned Abad Castillo and Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00695-LPS) involving claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP over the course of the late 1960’s through the mid-1980’s on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama.  Defendant Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from Abad Castillo on the ground that they were parties in cases that had been filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in Louisiana. On September 19, 2013, the appeals court granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22 plaintiffs should be dismissed. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted Dole’s motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired in 1995. Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary judgment in favor of defendants (on the same ground as the earlier motion) and the court entered judgment in the matter. Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to appeal; however, only 57 of the 2,700 actually entered an appeal. Thus, only 57 plaintiffs remain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third Circuit Court submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware Supreme Court on the question of when the tolling period ended. The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2018 and, on March 15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that federal court dismissal in 1995 on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not end class action tolling, and that such tolling ended when class action certification was denied in Texas state court in June 2010. This matter is now at the district court, following the appeals court’s receipt of the ruling. Discovery has commenced. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable in this matter and has not recorded a loss contingency.  

Chaverri.  This matter involves 258 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama alleging physical injury from DBCP in the late 1970’s, was originally filed in the state of Texas in 1993, then underwent a tortuous series of law and motion developments until it was ultimately refiled in May 2012 by the Hendler firm in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al. (including AMVAC) (N12C-06-017 ALR), where it was subsequently dismissed with prejudice in August 2012 under the statute of limitations. In light of the Delaware Supreme Court’s adoption of cross-jurisdictional tolling, however, in January 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, arguing that the matter had been dismissed on a basis which the Delaware Supreme Court no longer recognizes without ever having been adjudicated as to the merits. Defendants are filing briefs in opposition to this motion. The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency.

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 court granted judgment in favor of the defendants based upon the statute of limitations on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On April 8, 2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new counsel. On October 21, 2015, the Hawai’i Supreme Court granted the appeal and overturned the lower court decision, ruling that the State of Hawai’i now recognizes cross-jurisdictional tolling (that is, the principle under which the courts of one state recognize another state’s common law on the tolling of statutes of limitation), that plaintiffs filed their complaint within the applicable statute of limitations and that the matter is to be remanded to the lower court for further adjudication. However, in November 2018, the parties stipulated that, because it was not named as a defendant in the Carcamo matter (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.

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 that they had testicular 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 the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.

14

---

B. Other Matters

EPA FIFRA/RCRA Matter.  On November 10, 2016, the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama in which the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) sought production of documents relating to the Company’s reimportation of depleted Thimet containers from Canada and Australia. The Company retained defense counsel and completed production of documents. During the fourth quarter of 2018, government attorneys interviewed four individuals who may be knowledgeable of the matter. At this stage, DoJ has not made clear its intentions with regard to either its theory of the case or potential criminal enforcement. Thus, it is too early to tell whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency on 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.  Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that AMVAC was negligent and failed to warn them of the risks of such application.  Reed seeks damages of $250 for pain and suffering, while Jem Holdings seeks $60 in lost equipment; both plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages as well.  Also during January 2017, the Company received notice that four related actions relating to the same incident were filed with the same court: (i) Van Giessen Growers, Inc. v Harold Reed et al (No. 160303906)(in which grower seeks $400 for loss of potatoes); (ii) James Houweling et al. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 160104421)(in which equipment owner seeks damages for lost equipment); (iii) Chin Coulee Farms, etc. v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 150600545)(in which owner of potatoes and truck seeks $530 for loss thereof); and (iv) Houweling Farms v. Harold Reed et al. (No. 15060881)(in which owner of several Quonset huts seeks damages for lost improvements, equipment and business income equal to $4,300).  The Company was subsequently named as cross-defendant in those actions by Reed. During the third quarter of 2017, counsel for the Company filed a Statement of Defence (the Canadian equivalent of an answer), alleging that Reed was negligent in his application of the product and that the other cross-defendants were negligent for using highly flammable insulation and failing to maintain sparking electrical fixtures in the storage units affected by the fire.  The Company believes that the claims against it in these matters are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.  At this stage in the proceedings, however, it is too early to determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency.

Takings Case. On June 14, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit against the USEPA in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, entitled “American Vanguard Corporation v. USEPA” (Case No. 16-694C) under which the Company claimed damages from USEPA on the ground that that agency’s issuance of a Stop Sale, Use and Removal Order against the PCNB product line in August 2010 amounts to a taking without just compensation under the Tucker Act. The court in this matter denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which was brought in September 2016. Fact and expert discovery was completed, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the merits. In January 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment, while granting that of the government, finding that the Company’s PCNB business did not amount to a cognizable property interest in the context of the Tucker Act. The Company will be filing a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court’s decision was based upon an erroneous understanding of the facts. Since any recovery in this matter is contingent upon judgment, and there is no assurance of receiving a favorable judgment, the Company has not recorded any amount in its consolidated financial statements.

Not Applicable

15

---

PART II

Market Information

Effective March 7, 2006, the Company listed its $0.10 par value common stock (“Common Stock”) on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AVD. From January 1998 through March 6, 2006, the Common Stock was listed on the American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol AVD. The Company’s Common Stock traded on The NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol AMGD from March 1987 through January 1998. 

 

Holders

As of February 15, 2019, the number of stockholders of the Company’s Common Stock was approximately 4,522, which includes beneficial owners with shares held in brokerage accounts under street name and nominees.

Dividends

The Company has issued a cash dividend in each of the last twenty-three years dating back to 1996. Cash dividends declared during the past three years are summarized in the table below.

 

 

Share Repurchase Program

 

On November 5, 2018, pursuant to a Board of Directors resolution, the Company announced its intention to repurchase an aggregate amount of shares with a total purchase price not to exceed $20,000 of its common stock, par value $0.10 per share, in the open market, depending upon market conditions over the short to mid-term. The Shares Repurchase Program expires on March 8, 2019.  Share repurchases may be executed through various means, including, without limitation, open market transactions, privately negotiated transactions or pursuant to any trading plan that may be adopted in accordance with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements and other relevant factors. The Shares Repurchase Program does not obligate the Company to acquire any particular amount of shares of common stock and the program may be suspended or discontinued at any time.

 

16

---

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

 

The table below summarizes the number of shares of our common stock that were repurchased during the three months ended December 31, 2018 under the share repurchase program. The shares and respective amount are recorded as treasury shares on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.  

 

 

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

 

 

17

---

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph presents a comparison of the cumulative, five-year total return for the Company, the S&P 500 Stock Index, and a peer group (Specialty Chemical Industry). The graph assumes that the beginning values of the investments in the Company, the S&P 500 Stock Index, and the peer group of companies each was $100 on December 31, 2013. All calculations assume reinvestment of dividends. Returns over the indicated period should not be considered indicative of future returns.

 

18

---

The selected consolidated financial data set forth below with respect to each of the calendar years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2018, have been derived from the Company’s consolidated financial statements and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the more detailed consolidated financial statements and the independent registered public accounting firm’s reports thereon, which are included elsewhere in this Report on Form 10-K as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2018. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

 

 

 

19

---

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS/RISK FACTORS:

The Company, from time-to-time, may discuss forward-looking statements including assumptions concerning the Company’s operations, future results and prospects. Generally, “may,” “could,” “will,” “would,” “expect,” “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “continue” and similar words identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements appearing in this Report are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are based on our current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results and events to differ materially from those set forth in or implied by the forward-looking statements and related assumptions contained in the entire Report. Such factors include, but are not limited to: product demand and market acceptance risks; the effect of economic conditions; weather conditions; changes in regulatory policy; the impact of competitive products and pricing; changes in foreign exchange rates; product development and commercialization difficulties; capacity and supply constraints or difficulties; availability of capital resources; general business regulations, including taxes and other risks as detailed from time-to-time in the Company’s reports and filings filed with the U.S. SEC. It is not possible to foresee or identify all such factors. We urge you to consider these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements contained in this Report.

MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW

The Company’s operating results in 2018 were generally improved over those of 2017 with net sales up 28% ($454,272 as compared to $355,047), net income up 19% ($24,195 as compared to $20,274) and gross profit up 24% ($182,631 as compared to $147,392).

Top line sales performance was driven by the addition of new sales from the four acquisitions that the Company completed in the second half of 2017, which had a full year impact in 2018. Gross profit as a percentage of sales declined from 42% in 2017 to 40% in 2018. There were two factors driving that change. First, sales from our newly-acquired businesses generally carry lower margins when compared to the pre-existing business. Second, this reduction in gross margin on the additional sales was offset by a further improvement in our factory performance in 2018, which resulted in greater recovery of factory costs. Operating expenses rose on an absolute basis, as the Company recorded a full year of expenses related to the businesses acquired during 2017 and continued to invest in the maintenance of registrations of several important products and the development and commercialization of our SIMPAS precision application technology. When compared to net sales, operating costs improved from 34% of net sales in 2017 to 32% of net sales in 2018. Approximately 1% of this improvement relates to a $6,050 change in estimate relating to deferred consideration for acquisition made in 2017.

Due to our acquisition activities principally in the second half of 2017, our average borrowings increased in 2018, as compared to 2017. Average borrowings were also increased by the acquisitions completed in 2018. As a result, net interest expense was $4,024 in 2018, as compared to $1,941 in 2017. In addition, in 2018, we incurred $1,401 as a one-time acquisition expense as the result of the change in fair value of a derivative instrument, which related to the acquisition of the Brazilian business we acquired at the start of 2019.

Our income tax expense for 2018 ended at $9,145, as compared to $4,443 in 2017. In 2018, we incurred a one-time charge of $1,089, as a result of completing all final calculations related to the impact of the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Reform Act”). In 2017, we had previously estimated that the enactment of the Tax Reform Act conferred upon the Company a one-time benefit of $3,433. During 2018, our effective tax rate (including the one-time expense just mentioned) increased to 27%, as compared to 18% in 2017. Net income increased to $0.81 per diluted share ($0.83 per basic share), as compared to $0.68 per diluted share ($0.70 per basic share) in 2017, which, as mentioned above, was aided by a one-time benefit under the Tax Reform Act.  

When considering the consolidated balance sheet, long-term debt increased by $19,185 to $96,671 at December 31, 2018, as compared to $77,486 this time last year. The increased level of debt was driven by the four acquisitions completed in 2018 and particularly in the final quarter of the year. The Company’s borrowing capacity decreased to $112,150 as of December 31, 2018, as compared to $139,241 at the same time in 2017. Furthermore, inventory increased by $36,771 ($159,895, as compared to $123,124) at year-end. This was driven by inventory associated with acquisitions and expedited procurement of certain goods from China to minimize increased tariffs.

20

---

Results of Operations

2018 Compared with 2017:

 

 

Following is a more detailed discussion of our sales performance by category.  Domestic sales finished the year at $300,314, as compared to $256,142 in 2017, an increase of 17%. Sales gains resulted from strong growth in our US cotton defoliant Folex®, increased sales of our soil fumigant products in light of more favorable weather conditions, as compared to the prior year and full-year sales of products (paraquat, abamectin and chlorothalonil) and businesses (OHP) acquired in 2017. These gains were offset by softness in the procurement of our corn soil insecticides (as growers shifted significant acreage to soybeans in 2018), a decrease in sales of our Thimet® granular soil insecticide (due to a 20% reduction in peanut acres in 2018), a decline in sales of our mosquito adulticide Dibrom (from the exceptional hurricane-driven demand of 2017), and a reduction in our toll manufacturing business, which will be shifted into 2019.

International sales increased 56% year-over year ($153,958 in 2018 as compared to $98,905 in 2017), driven by the full year impact of the Central American distribution business acquired in October 2017. We experienced relatively stable sales performance from our other main international products Mocap, Nemacur, Counter and Aztec.

The relative sales performance of our crop and non-crop businesses is as follows: Net sales of our crop business in 2018 were $392,305, which constitutes an increase of 30% as compared to net sales of $301,409 in 2017. Net sales of our non-crop products in 2018 were $61,967, which is an increase of approximately 16% as compared to $53,638 in 2017. A more detailed discussion of product groups and products having an effect on net sales for each of the crop and non-crop businesses appears below.

21

---

In our crop business, net sales of insecticides in 2018 ended at $150,595, which was a 12% increase, as compared to sales of $134,377 in 2017. The increase in sales was driven primarily by the full year effect of sales of our Central American distribution business acquired in the final quarter of 2017. This performance was somewhat offset by a reduction of 7% in net sales of our granular soil insecticides, as compared to net sales in 2017. Furthermore, we recorded reduced year-over-year sales for our Aztec and SmartChoice CSI products for corn and for our Thimet® used in peanuts, sugar cane and potatoes, primarily due to lower planted acres in the United States for both corn and peanuts in 2018. We had relatively flat year-over-year sales for our nematicide Counter® in the domestic corn and sugar beet segments along with slight increases in the combined international sales of Mocap® and Nemacur®.  In our foliar insecticide category, we had relatively lower in-season infestation pressure, which reduced our year-over-year Bidrin® sales somewhat, but was more than offset by sales from our abamectin product line acquired in 2017.

Within the product group of herbicides/soil fumigants/fungicides, our crop net sales grew over 47% in 2018, ending at $183,350, as compared to $124,529 in 2017. Our sales growth was primarily driven by the full year effect of sales of our Central American distribution business acquired in the final quarter of 2017. In addition, our fumigant product line continued to perform well, increasing 8% above 2017, benefiting from more favorable weather conditions at the time of application in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast United States. In the herbicide portion of this group, we had stronger performance from our traditional products Impact® and Dacthal®, and the strong performance of our newly acquired paraquat herbicide, which nearly doubled its prior year performance, in part due to the full year effect and in part related to an improved supply position. In the fungicide portions of the group, chlorothalonil, one of our newly acquired products in 2017 contributed an incremental $15,000 to the 2018 performance of this group.  Finally on fungicides, chlorothalonil and PCNB, both performed well, and grew sales strongly in 2018 as compared to 2017.

Within our other product group (which includes plant growth regulators, molluscicides and third party manufacturing activity), we experienced an increase of 37% in net sales, ending at $58,360 in 2018, as compared to $42,503 in 2017. The main drivers of this performance were the inclusion of a full year AgriCenter business (acquired in November of 2017) into this grouping (adding approximately $20,000 to year-over-year net sales), in addition to a very strong year for our Folex® cotton harvest defoliant which grew approximately 26%, as compared to the prior year. These increases were partially offset by a 2018 decline in toll manufacturing activity, which will catch up in 2019.

Within our non-crop business, 2018 net sales increased by 16% to $61,967, as compared to $53,638 in 2017. This improved performance benefited from full-year sales of OHP, our new niche horticultural distribution business acquired in November of 2017. Additionally, our pre-existing non-crop product portfolio had a very solid year including Naled (our Dibrom® brand mosquito adulticide) which performed well in 2018, albeit lower than our record sales performance of 2017, which was boosted by the intense hurricane season, headlined by the persistent torrential rains of Harvey over the eastern Texas coastal region.

Our cost of sales for 2018 was $271,641 or 60% of sales. This compared to $207,655 or 58% of sales for 2017. The Company aggregates a number of key variable, semi-variable and fixed cost components within reported cost of sales. The raw materials element of our cost of sales increased slightly (up 0.6%), as compared to last year. The overall increased cost of sales was expected and relates to the change in sales mix driven by the products and businesses acquired in 2017 that recorded a full year in 2018, as compared to a partial year in 2017. In general terms the cost of sales related to the products and business acquired in 2017 tends to be higher than those of our pre-existing portfolio, because those businesses are selling fully marked up, third-party products, while the Company’s core portfolio benefits from the upstream manufacturing activity. Our manufacturing performance for the year was strong and in-line with our targets; specifically, our factory under absorption costs dropped to 0.4% of net sales in 2018, as compared to 3.6% of net sales in 2017.  

Gross profit for 2018 improved by $35,239 or 24% to end at $182,631 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $147,392 for the prior year. Gross margin as a percent of net sales, however, was 40% for 2018, as compared to 42% in 2017. While the Company experienced continuous improvement in factory performance and factory cost recovery and strong performance in raw material purchasing, these benefits were offset by competitive pricing pressure in the Midwest herbicide market and a larger volume of lower margin sales through newly acquired distribution businesses.

22

---

Operating expenses in 2018 increased by $23,012 to $143,610 or 32% of sales as compared to $120,598 or 34% in 2017. The differences in operating expenses by department are as follows:

 

 

Net interest expense was $4,024 in 2018, as compared to $1,941 in 2017. Interest costs are summarized in the following table:

 

 

The Company’s average overall debt for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $93,346, as compared to $51,103 for the year ended December 31, 2017. On a gross basis, our effective interest rate increased on our working capital revolver to 3.6%, as compared to 3.0% in 2017. This increase was driven by increases in the LIBOR rate. After adjustments related to capitalized interest and including expenses related to the amortization of deferred liabilities, the overall effective rate was 4.3% for 2018, as compared to 3.8% in 2017.

 

23

---

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Reform Act”) was signed into law. The legislation significantly changed U.S. tax law by, among other things, lowering corporate income tax rates, implementing a territorial tax system and imposing a tax on deemed repatriated earnings of foreign subsidiaries. The Tax Reform Act reduced the U.S. corporate income tax rate from a maximum of 35% to a flat 21% rate, effective January 1, 2018. As a result of the reduction in the U.S. corporate income tax rate, we revalued our ending net deferred tax assets and liabilities at December 31, 2017, provisionally resulting in a deferred tax benefit of $4,683 that is included in the provision for income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2017. The Tax Reform Act also provided for a one-time deemed mandatory repatriation of Post-1986 undistributed foreign subsidiary earnings and profits (“E&P”) through the year ended December 31, 2017.  During 2017, we had performed an initial review of our foreign entities and estimated that the amount of deemed repatriated income amounts to $30,085, on which the Company included a tax expense of $1,250. During 2018, the Company obtained additional information and, as a result, adjusted its estimate. Accordingly, the amount of deemed repatriated income increased to $32,305, and the associated tax increased to $2,339 resulting in a one-time adjustment to tax expense in the amount of $1,089 related to the transition tax element of the Tax Reform Act.

Our provision for income taxes for 2018 was $9,145, as compared to $4,443 for 2017. The effective tax rate for 2018 was 27.2%, as compared to 17.9% in 2017. The increase in our effective tax rate was primarily driven by the inclusion of the one-time adjustment of $1,089 related to the transition tax element of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If this transition tax adjustment were to be excluded, the effective tax rate would have been 24.0%.  

The SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 118, (“SAB 118”) which provides guidance on accounting for the tax effects of the Tax Act. SAB 118 provides a measurement period that should not extend beyond one year from the Tax Act enactment date for companies to complete the accounting under Accounting Standards Codification 740 (“ASC 740”). The Company completed its assessment under SAB 118 within the one year time period as required under the guidance.

The Company is subject to U.S. federal income tax as well as to income tax in multiple state jurisdictions. Federal income tax returns of the Company are subject to International Revenue (“IRS”) examination for the 2015 through 2017 tax years. State income tax returns are subject to examination for the 2014 through 2017 tax years. The Company has other foreign income tax returns subject to examination.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded net losses on its equity investments of $389. For 2017, the Company recorded losses on its equity investments of $49.

In 2018, our net income benefited by $133, as compared to being reduced by $87 in 2017, representing the share of net income or loss of our majority owned subsidiary that was charged to the non-controlling interest.  

Net income attributable to American Vanguard ended at 24,195 or $0.81 per diluted share in 2018 as compared to $20,274 or $0.68 per diluted share in 2017.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

The Company generated $11,346 of cash from operating activities provided during the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $59,001 in the prior year. Included in the $11,346 are net income of $24,062, plus non-cash depreciation, amortization of intangibles and other assets and discounted future liabilities, in the amount of $24,134. In addition, stock based compensation of $5,805, loss from equity method investments of $389 and change in value of deferred income taxes of $561, provided net cash inflows of $53,829, as compared to $47,812 for the same period of 2017.

During 2018, the Company used $42,483 as a result of increasing working capital, as compared to generating $11,189 during 2017. This change excluded increases in working capital related to the products and businesses acquired during 2018. Included in this change: inventories increased by $31,440 primarily resulting from products and businesses acquired in 2017, inventories purchased ahead of potential tariff changes and some changes in customer usage in the final quarter of the year. Deferred revenue as of December 31, 2018 increased by $5,468, as compared to December 31, 2017, as a result of customer decisions to make early payments in return for early cash incentive programs. Our accounts payable balances increased by $9,097 driven by increased manufacturing activity and capital spending in the final quarter of the year and accounts receivables increased by $21,320 primarily driven by the significantly higher sales in the final three months of 2018, as compared to the same period of the prior year. In addition, prepaid expenses were reduced by $186, program accruals were reduced by $1,705 and other payables and accrued expenses were increased by $5,424.  

24

---

With regard to the program accrual, these changes as noted above, primarily reflect our mix of sales and customers in 2018 as compared to the prior year. The Company accrues programs in line with the growing season upon which specific products are targeted. Typically crop products have a growing season that ends on September 30^th of each year. During 2018, the Company made accruals for programs in the amount of $61,114 and made payments in the amount of $62,819. During the prior year, the Company made accruals in the amount of $59,840 and made payments in the amount of $63,716.

In 2017, inventory reduced by $16,183, accounts payables increased by $3,322, other payables increased by $3,841, accounts receivables decreased by $754, prepaid expenses reduced by $647 and deferred revenues increased by $10,726. Offsetting these positive changes, income tax payable decreased by $12,073, and accrued programs decreased by $4,529.  

Cash used for investing activities was $27,697 for the year ended December 31, 2018, as compared to $89,512 in 2017. The Company spent $19,647 in business and product acquisitions including intangible assets, goodwill, working capital and fixed assets.  In addition, $8,050 was spent on fixed assets primarily focused on continuing to invest in manufacturing infrastructure.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, financing activities provided $11,133, principally from the borrowings on the Company’s senior credit facility, as compared to utilizing $33,935 for the year ended December 31, 2017. This included a net borrowing of $18,975 from our credit facility in 2018, as compared to a net repayment of $37,025 in 2017. During the final quarter of the year, we paid $73 to buy out the non-controlling interest in a consolidated subsidiary. Finally, during the year, we paid dividends to stockholders amounting to $2,199 ($1,600 in 2017), and purchased the Company’s common stock at market for $7,287.  

The Company has various loans in place that together constitute the long-term loan balances shown in the consolidated balance sheets as at December 31, 2018 and 2017. These are summarized in the following table:

 

 

The Company’s main bank is Bank of the West, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the French bank, BNP Paribas. Bank of the West has been the Company’s bank for more than 30 years and is the syndication manager for the Company’s loans.

As of June 30, 2017, AMVAC Chemical Corporation (“AMVAC”), the Company’s principal operating subsidiary, as borrower, and affiliates (including the Company, AMVAC CV and AMVAC BV), as guarantors and/or borrowers, entered into a Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of commercial lenders led by Bank of the West as agent, swing line lender and Letter of Credit (“L/C”) issuer. The Credit Agreement is a senior secured lending facility, consisting of a line of credit of up to $250,000, an accordion feature of up to $100,000 and a maturity date of June 30, 2022.  The Credit Agreement contains two key financial covenants; namely, borrowers are required to maintain a Consolidated Funded Debt Ratio of no more than 3.25-to-1 and a Consolidated Fixed Charge Covenant Ratio of at least 1.25-to-1. The Company’s borrowing capacity varies with its financial performance, measured in terms of EBITDA as defined in the Credit Agreement, for the trailing twelve-month period. Under the Credit Agreement, revolving loans bear interest at a variable rate based, at borrower’s election with proper notice, on either (i) LIBOR plus the “Applicable Rate” which is based upon the Consolidated Funded Debt Ratio (“Eurocurrency Rate Loan”) or (ii) the greater of (x) the Prime Rate, (y) the Federal Funds Rate plus 0.5%, and (z) the Daily One-Month LIBOR Rate plus 1.00%, plus, in the case of (x), (y) or (z) the Applicable Rate (“Alternate Base Rate Loan”). Interest payments for Eurocurrency Rate Loans are payable on the last day of each interest period (either one, two, three or six months, as selected by the borrower) and the maturity date, while interest payments for Alternate Base Rate Loans are payable on the last business day of each month and the maturity date.

At December 31, 2018, according to the terms of the Credit Agreement and based on our performance against the most restrictive covenant listed above, the Company had the capacity to increase its borrowings by up to $112,150. This compares to an available borrowing capacity of $139,241 as of December 31, 2017. The level of borrowing capacity is driven by three factors: (1) our financial performance, as measured in EBITDA for trailing twelve-month period, (2) the inclusion of proforma EBITDA related to acquisitions completed during the preceding twelve months and (3) the leverage covenant (being the number of times EBITDA the Company may borrow under its credit facility agreement). The Company was in compliance with all the debt covenants as of December 31, 2018.

25

---

Contractual Obligations and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We believe that the combination of our cash flows from operations, current cash on hand and the availability under the Company’s credit facility will be sufficient to meet our working capital and capital expenditure requirements and will provide us with adequate liquidity to meet our anticipated operating needs for at least the next 12 months from the issuance of the Annual Report. Although operating activities are expected to provide cash, to the extent of growth in the future, our operating and investing activities will use cash and, consequently, this growth may require us to access some or all of the availability under the credit facility. It is also possible that additional sources of finance may be necessary to support additional growth.

The following summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2018, and the effects such obligations are expected to have on cash flows in future periods:

 

 

There were no other off-balance sheet arrangements as of December 31, 2018.

Under the terms of the credit facility, all debt outstanding is due when the agreement expires on June 30, 2022.

In addition to the above contractual obligations, $2,170 of unrecognized tax benefits and $2,368 of accrued penalties and interest have been recorded as long term liabilities as of December 31, 2018. We are uncertain as to if or when such amounts may be settled or any tax benefits may be realized.

 

26

---

Results of Operations

2017 Compared with 2016: