I. DBCP Litigation

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”). A summary of these actions follows:

A. Hawaii Matters

Board of Water Supply v. Shell Oil Co. et al.

AMVAC and the Company were served with complaints in February 1997. The actions were filed in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii entitled Board of Water Supply of the County of Maui v. Shell Oil Co., et. al. The suit named as defendants the Company, AMVAC, Shell Oil Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Company, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Brewer Environmental Industry, Inc. Maui Pineapple Company was joined as a cross-defendant. The Complaint alleged that between two and four of the Board’s wells had been contaminated with DBCP in excess of the maximum contaminant level (“MCL”). In addition, the Board of Water Supply contended that future wells may exceed the MCL level and would need remediation. On August 2, 1999, a global settlement was reached, which included the remediation of the existing contaminated wells in addition to the installation of filtration devices on other wells for the next forty years on the island of Maui. The cash settlement was three million dollars ($3,000,000) of which AMVAC’s (and the Company’s) portion was five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). The settlement agreement obligates the defendants to pay for the installation of filtration devices on other wells that become contaminated later and for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the filtration devices for up to forty years. The annual costs of operation and maintenance per well is estimated to be approximately sixty-nine thousand dollars ($69,000), to be adjusted annually by the consumer price index. The obligations of the defendants under this agreement are secured by a twenty million-dollar letter of credit obtained by Dow Chemical. In connection with the settlement, in October 2005, AMVAC paid for a share of a permanent filtration system in the amount of $222,198. In June 2007, AMVAC paid $23,654 for its share of operations and maintenance expenses for 2005 and 2006.

14

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al

In October 1997, AMVAC was served with a Complaint(s) in which it was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Co., et. al (“Patrickson Case”) alleging damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs’ exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other named defendants are: Dole Food Co., Dole Fresh Fruit, Dole Fresh Fruit International, Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit & Steamship, Standard Fruit Company De Costa Rica, Standard Fruit Company De Honduras, Chiquita Brands, Chiquita Brands International, Martrop Trading Corporation, and Del Monte Fresh Produce. (American Vanguard Corporation has not been sued in these actions.) The ten named plaintiffs are citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The plaintiffs were banana workers and allege that they were exposed to DBCP in applying the product in their native countries. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers so exposed in these four countries. The plaintiffs allege sterility and other injuries. The suits were removed to federal court and for the last several years, the focus of the case has been on procedural issues, including the dismissal of the case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This doctrine would require the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in their native countries. On April 22, 2003, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision on the procedural posture of the case, holding there was no jurisdiction in federal court and remanded the case to state court. Starting in early 2004, there had been no activity in the case for about two years. However, a status conference was held on June 1, 2006 at the request of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who expressed a desire to pursue the class action aspect or add other individuals. Plaintiffs’ counsel now claims that his class members will include workers from mainland U.S. and other countries. On September 12, 2006, the court ordered the transfer of venue from Maui County to Oahu. The court held a status conference on April 16, 2007 and tentatively set the case for trial for February 16, 2009. The plaintiffs were requested to file a preliminary motion for class certification but have not done so to date. All parties expect that the case will not be certified as a class action as a matter of law, but the plaintiffs’ attorney then wants to add several thousand other individuals as plaintiffs here or in some other action. No discovery has taken place on the individual claims of the plaintiffs. Without such discovery, it is unknown whether any of the plaintiffs was exposed to AMVAC brand DBCP, what are the actual injuries, or what statute of limitation defenses may apply. AMVAC intends to contest the cases vigorously. However, it is too early to provide an assessment as to the probability of an unfavorable outcome in these matters.

Further, the plaintiffs’ attorneys reported that the ten plaintiffs filed suit in their home countries in 1998, based on the prior order of forum non conveniens, alleging damages in excess of two million United States dollars ($2,000,000) per plaintiff. The suit in Guatemala was served on AMVAC in March 2001, but no defendant has been required to answer. Suits in the other countries have not been served. AMVAC has engaged local attorneys in the countries to defend these foreign suits.

Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al

On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses, alleging testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure: Adams v. Dole Food Co. et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Co., Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Co., Dow Chemical Co. and Occidental Corporation. Plaintiff Mark Adams alleges he was exposed to DBCP in 1974 and 1975 while working on Dole’s plantation on Oahu. Plaintiff Nelson Ng alleges he was exposed between 1971 and 1973 while working in Lanai City, Lanai. AMVAC answered the complaint on or about December 14, 2007. While no discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs.

15

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

B. Mississippi Matters

In May 1996, AMVAC was served with five complaints in which it is named as a defendant. (These complaints were filed by the same attorneys representing the Patrickson plaintiffs in Hawaii.) The complaints are brought by plaintiffs Edgar Arroyo-Gonzalez, Eulogio Garzon-Larreategui, ValentinValdez, Amilcar Belteton-Rivera, and Carlos Nicanor Espinola-E against one or more of the following named defendants: Coahoma Chemical Co. Inc., Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Co., Occidental Chemical Co., Standard Fruit Co., Standard Fruit and Steamship Co., Dole Food Co., Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Co., Chiquita Brands, Inc., Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. The cases were filed in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, First Judicial District of Mississippi. Each case alleged damages sustained from injuries caused by plaintiffs’ (who are former banana workers and citizens of a Central American country) exposure to DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. These cases were removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division. The federal court granted defense motions to dismiss in each case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens . On January 19, 2001, the court issued an unpublished decision, finding that there was jurisdiction in federal court, but remanded just one case (Espinola) back to the trial court based on a stipulation which limited the plaintiff’s recovery to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). No activity has taken place on this matter since 2001. Without discovery, it is unknown whether this plaintiff was exposed to the Company’s product or what defenses may apply. AMVAC intends to contest the cases vigorously. It is too early to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in this case.

C. Louisiana Matters

In November 1999, AMVAC was served with three complaints filed in the 29 ^th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana entitled Pedro Rodrigues et. al v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et. al, Andres Puerto, et. al v. Amvac Chemical Corporation, et. al and Eduardo Soriano, et al v. Amvac Chemical Corporation et. al. Other named defendants are: Dow Chemical Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Standard Fruit, Dole Food, Chiquita Brands, Tela Railroad Company, Compania Palma Tica, and Del Monte Fresh Produce. American Vanguard Corporation is not named as a defendant. These suits were filed in 1996, but they were not served until November 1999. Following a dismissal of most of the plaintiffs from the action (in light of the fact that they had previously settled their claims in other actions), the complaints, with Soriano as the lead case, allege personal injuries to 314 persons (167 from Ecuador, 102 from Costa Rica, and 45 from Guatemala) from alleged exposure to DBCP (punitive damages are also sought). With the United States Supreme Court holding there was no federal court jurisdiction in the Patrickson case, the federal court judge remanded the cases to Louisiana state court in June 2003. In state court, the three cases were assigned to two different judges. On November 17, 2006, the state court separated the cases handled by attorney Scott Hendler from the cases being pursed only against the growers handled by different counsel. Subsequently, the cases against the growers were settled and all those actions were dismissed. The cases handled by Mr. Hendler were supposed to be placed in a new action, which was not done. After a hearing on January 29, 2008, the court ruled on February 8, 2008 that these plaintiffs could still proceed in the existing cases rather than in a new pleading.

As in many of the other banana workers cases, no discovery has taken place on the individual claims of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is unknown as to how many of the plaintiffs claim exposure to AMVAC’s product, what are the actual injuries, and whether their claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitation. AMVAC intends to vigorously contest these cases. It is too early to provide any evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome at this time.

16

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

D. Nicaragua Matters

Tellez et al v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al

On March 26, 2004, 25 plaintiffs, all residents of Nicaragua, filed suit in state court in Los Angeles County, California, claiming personal injuries from alleged exposure to DBCP while working on banana plantations in their home country. The named defendants are Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dow Chemical Company, and AMVAC Chemical Corporation. American Vanguard was not named as a defendant. Punitive damages were also sought against all defendants.

The plaintiffs, all field workers, claim personal injuries for complete sterility (azoospermia) or in one case, severely reduced sperm count. They claim exposure from working on banana plantations in Nicaragua from dermal contact with DBCP and inhalation of vapors. The plaintiffs also claimed exposure to DBCP in groundwater that they ingested, but testing of wells in October 2005 did not reveal the presence of any DBCP contamination and this claim of exposure through groundwater was dropped.

AMVAC was served with the complaint on April 12, 2004 and filed an answer on May 5, 2004. On May 6, 2004, Dow Chemical removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was subsequently remanded to state court.

On September 2, 2004, the plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint that dropped seven plaintiffs and added 18 others, so that there were a total of 36 plaintiffs. Since that time, 18 plaintiffs have been dismissed, four others who have not yet obtained U.S. visas to come to the United States for their depositions, and one making a cancer related claim have been transferred to the Mejia case listed below, reducing the total to 13.

In March 2007, AMVAC settled with the 13 plaintiffs for a total of $300,000 without any admission of liability. The case proceeded to a jury trial against the Dole Food and Dow Chemical defendants in July 2007 for 12 plaintiffs as one was transferred to the Mejia case. On November 5, 2007, the jury found for the defendants on the claims of six of the plaintiffs and found for the plaintiffs on the other six for a total award of approximately $3.3 million. For five of the six plaintiffs, the jury allocated 80% of the liability to Dole on fraudulent concealment and strict liability causes of action and 20% to Dow (and 40% on the other plaintiff) on strict products liability. In further deliberations, the same jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages to each of five plaintiffs as against the Dole entities for fraudulent concealment for a total of an additional $2.5 million. Motions for new trial are pending. On March 7, 2008, the trial court in Tellez granted Dole’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to punitive damages thereby reversing the award of punitive damages ($2.5 million) against Dole. In reaching its decision, the court found that any award of punitive damages as against Dole would be violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the claimed injuries to plaintiffs and Dole’s acts occurred outside of California. As this case impacts the other DBCP suits, the Company is monitoring these developments.

This case, like the other pending banana workers suits, demonstrates the difficult issues of law and fact to all parties and the potential of large verdicts, at least in cases involving claims of complete sterility (azoospermia) that defendants cannot explain. In all of these banana worker cases, there is no guarantee that the Company will be able to avoid an adverse judgment or that the size of any such judgment will not have an adverse effect upon the Company’s financial performance. If plaintiffs continue to be successful, it is likely that other banana workers from Nicaragua will file suit in California.

17

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

Rodolfo Mejia et al v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al

On September 20, 2005, the attorneys who also represent plaintiffs in Tellez et al v. Dole Food Company et al filed an action on behalf of 16 Nicaraguan plaintiffs in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, the Dow Chemical Company, and AMVAC Chemical Corporation. The complaint alleges that the 16 plaintiffs worked at various banana farms in Nicaragua and were exposed to DBCP from 1970 to 1984, suffering irreversible sterility or infertility. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against each defendant. The suit has been assigned to the same judge for case management and trial as in the Tellez matter. These plaintiffs allege that they were all applicators of the product at the banana farms. The plaintiffs also allege exposure to DBCP from contaminated groundwater.

Plaintiffs served a First Amended Complaint naming 21 workers as plaintiffs, including five plaintiffs who were transferred from the Tellez action. A second amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2008, that added the plaintiffs who had just filed suit in the Rivera case listed below, making a total of 26.

This case has been set for trial for February 2, 2009. The court has advised that after it is determined who will be able to obtain visas, discovery will be limited to 20 plaintiffs and any others beyond that number must be transferred to another case. Discovery has not yet begun in this case as the final selection of the plaintiffs has not yet been made. It is too early to provide any evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome at this time.

At a status conference on February 8, 2008, the court ordered that the parties in this case and all the other DBCP cases filed in Los Angeles must engage in global mediation sessions that are to include all cases.

Rivera et al v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al

On October 26, 2007, the attorneys who also represent plaintiffs in Tellez et al v. Dole Food Company et al filed an action on behalf of four Nicaraguan plaintiffs in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Dole Food Company, Inc., Dole Fresh Fruit Company, Standard Fruit Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, the Dow Chemical Company, and AMVAC Chemical Corporation. The complaint alleges that the four plaintiffs worked at various banana farms in Nicaragua and were exposed to DBCP from 1975 to 1990, suffering irreversible sterility or infertility. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against each defendant. The suit has been assigned to the same judge for case management and trial as in the Tellez and the Mejia matters.

The complaint was amended on November 30, 2007 to include a total of six plaintiffs. AMVAC answered this first amended complaint on January 10, 2008. As explained above, these six workers were then added to the Mejia suit on January 22, 2008, so presently they have two actions. These six will be dismissed from the Rivera complaint and others from the Mejia action or others selected by the plaintiffs’ attorneys will be added to this case.

At the present, it is unknown who will be named as plaintiffs in this case.

Suits filed in Nicaragua

The Los Angeles attorneys representing these workers in California have recently stated that they have as many as 10,000 clients in Nicaragua.

In prior descriptions of pending litigation and other matters, several suits filed in Nicaragua in January 2003 on behalf of banana workers claiming exposure to DBCP were mentioned. It was reported that AMVAC had been named in these suits, but was not served with the complaints.

18

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

In May 2005, two suits filed in Nicaragua in 2004 were received that name AMVAC, The Dow Chemical Company, Dole Food Co., Dole Fresh Fruit, and Standard Fruit Company. The two suits for personal injuries for sterility and reduced sperm counts have been filed on behalf of a total of 15 banana workers: Flavio Apolinar Castillo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al. , No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al. , No. 679/04. In December 2005, AMVAC received six additional, similar lawsuits filed on behalf of a total of 30 plaintiffs. These plaintiffs each claim $1 million in special and general damages and $5 million in punitive damages.

AMVAC has retained an attorney in Nicaragua and understands that the receipt of these eight suits constitutes first notice and an invitation to attend mediation. All but one of these suits is based on Nicaraguan Public Law 364 issued in October 2000 that is directed solely at DBCP and requires the posting of a $100,000 bond, sets forth a lessened standard of proof to show that the claimed injuries are due to DBCP, and establishes an unreasonable amount of minimum compensation for injuries. This law also provides that there is no statute of limitations.

On January 25, 2006, AMVAC was served with the Flavio Apolinar Castillo and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo suits listed above. In March 2006, counsel in Nicaragua filed objections to jurisdiction over Amvac in these two cases. The court finally ruled on all the defendants’ objections on March 20, 2007 by denying each objection to jurisdiction. Appeals are pending at the appellate level in Nicaragua.

A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, by local counsel has found 85 suits filed pursuant to Public Law 364 that name AMVAC and include approximately 3,592 plaintiffs. However, only the two Castillo and Suazo cases have been served on Amvac. Each of these plaintiffs claims $1 million in special and general damages and $5 million in punitive damages. It is anticipated that the plaintiffs’ attorneys will continue to file additional actions on a monthly basis in Nicaragua.

In an earlier round of suits brought in Nicaragua against Dow, Shell, and Standard Fruit only, the Nicaragua court issued judgments for $490 million in December 2002 based on claims of 583 banana workers, despite defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and the unconstitutionality of Public Law 364. It has been reported that in 2003, the United States District Court in Los Angeles refused to enforce these judgments on the basis that the judgments did not properly name the defendants. The U.S. District Court did not reach the issue of due process under Public Law 364. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is pending.

AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364 violates international due process of law. AMVAC intends to contest personal jurisdiction and demand under Law 364 that the claims be litigated in the United States. Thus far, it appears that the Nicaraguan courts have denied all requests of other defendants under Law 364 that allow the defendants the option of consenting to jurisdiction in the United States. 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. Based on the precedent of the earlier suits in Nicaragua, it would appear likely that the Nicaragua courts will, over the defendants’ objections, enter multi-million dollar judgments for the plaintiffs and against all defendants in these cases. One such judgment was entered in August 2005 for $97 million for 150 plaintiffs against Dole Food and other entities. It has also been reported that on December 1, 2006, the Nicaraguan court rendered a judgment for $802 million against Dow, Shell, Occidental, and Standard Fruit for some 1200 plaintiffs.

E. Ivory Coast Cases

On October 6, 2006, AMVAC was served with seven suits filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and one suit in the United States District Court in Los Angeles that include a total of 668 residents of the Ivory

19

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

Coast as plaintiffs. Each plaintiff claims bodily injuries from exposure to DBCP while residing or working on banana or pineapple plantations in that country from the 1970s to the present. The suits name AMVAC, Dow Chemical, Shell Oil Company, and Dole Food as defendants. All these suits also seek punitive damages, and the action filed in federal court alleges a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging that the sale and use of DBCP amounted to genocide in the Ivory Coast. AMVAC did not sell any DBCP into the Ivory Coast at any time and intends to defend these cases vigorously. Discovery has not yet begun in these cases, and it is too early to provide any evaluation as to the probability of an unfavorable outcome.

On November 3, 2006, Dow and Shell removed the seven state court cases to federal court, alleging that the naming of AMVAC and the Dole entities amounted to a fraudulent joinder of those defendants by plaintiffs to defeat federal jurisdiction. However, the federal court remanded all of those cases on its own motion back to state court. These state cases were reassigned to the same complex case management judge as in the Tellez and Mejia suits in May 2007. Limited discovery has been permitted to focus on preliminary issues as to which DBCP product was used in the Ivory Coast and which defendants, if any, belong in these cases. The plaintiffs’ attorney is unwilling to dismiss any defendant at this time. A further status conference is scheduled for April 14, 2008.

On December 7, 2006 Amvac answered the Alien Tort Claims Act case in federal court. A defense motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case was granted on March 26, 2007, whereby the court dismissed the genocide and unlawful distribution of pesticide claims with prejudice, and dismissed the remaining claims with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April 2007 regarding only the claims for relief for crimes against humanity and racial discrimination and omitting the claims that the court had dismissed. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss that was heard on May 21, 2007 and was granted after being taken under submission. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and this appeal is pending.

F. Other DBCP Matters

Other attorneys filed suits in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2005 on behalf of several thousand banana workers in other countries, including Costa Rica, Panama, and Honduras. AMVAC has not been named in these suits.

II. Other Litigation Matters

A. McLendon v. Philip Service Corporation

On July 19, 2006, AMVAC’s registered agent was served with a putative class action complaint entitled Latrice McLendon, et al. v. Philip Service Corporation etc. et al (including AMVAC), which was filed in the Superior State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia No. 2006CN119863 and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia No. 1:06-CV-1770-CAP, in which a class of Georgia plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages, in an unspecified amount for personal injuries and diminution in property value allegedly arising from the airborne release of propyl mercaptan and ethoprop from a waste treatment facility operated by PSC Recovery Services (“PSC”) in Fairburn, Georgia. Plaintiffs, residents living in the vicinity of the PSC plant, allege trespass, nuisance and negligence on behalf of defendants in handling, storing and treating waste which was generated by AMVAC’s Axis, Alabama facility. After having completed class certification discovery, and prior to a ruling from the court on certification of the class, the parties engaged in mediation on September 19, 2007 before a neutral mediator.

Working in conjunction with their insurance carriers at the mediation, defendants AMVAC and PSC have agreed in principle to settle the matter with a settlement class of approximately 2,000 households for payment of cash consideration. The settlement process involves multiple steps to be taken over several months and requires

20

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

both preliminary and final court approval. As currently proposed, the settlement would not have an adverse effect upon the Company’s financial performance. However, the settlement is not yet final, members of the settlement class remain free to opt out of the settlement and to preserve their individual rights, and it is not anticipated that the settlement will include mutual releases between co-defendants. In addition, each co-defendant’s insurance carrier has reserved all rights under applicable insurance policies, including rights to subrogation and contribution. On a related note, on April 16, 2007, AMVAC executed a draft consent order (including an agreement to pay a civil penalty with the option to perform a supplemental environmental project in partial payment thereof) with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) for resolution of alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations arising from AMVAC’s storage of washwater and other materials that were returned to AMVAC by PSC in connection with activities that are the subject of the McLendon litigation; the consent order has been finalized, and ADEM has approved AMVAC’s proposed supplemental environmental project.

B. Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation v. AMVAC

On May 30, 2007, AMVAC’s registered agent was served with a summons, complaint and motion for preliminary injunction by Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“Aceto”) in a matter entitled Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division as Case No. 1:07-CV-1236-CC. In this action, plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief for alleged antitrust violations arising from AMVAC’s purchase of the patent relating to the EZ Load ^® closed delivery system. Aceto, which has sold a generic version of the insecticide phorate through the EZ Load system, was licensee under a license with the former patent holder which permitted Aceto to use the EZ Load system through August 1, 2007. Aceto seeks, among other things, to enjoin AMVAC from asserting its patent rights following the expiration of Aceto’s license. AMVAC believes that this case has no merit and plans to defend it vigorously. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction concluded on October 26, 2007, and, on December 17, 2007, the court entered an order under which is denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Aceto had not met its burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits of any claim. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order. It is too early in this case, however, to make an assessment of the likelihood of there being an adverse judgment against AMVAC or whether such judgment could have an adverse effect upon the Company’s financial performance.

The Company may, from time to time, be involved in other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of its business. The results of litigation, including those described above, cannot be predicted with certainty. The Company has and will continue to expend resources and incur expenses in connection with these proceedings. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in these proceedings. While the Company continually evaluates insurance levels for product liability, property damage and other potential areas of risk, an adverse determination in one or more of these proceedings could subject the Company to significant liabilities, which could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and operating results.