AMERICAN VANGUARD CORP - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For The Year Ended December 31, 2012

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    x

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  x

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  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files).    Yes  x    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.  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates is $703.0 million. This figure is estimated as of June 30, 2012 at which date the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $26.59 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, 2012, was 27,897,069. The number of shares of $.10 par value Common Stock outstanding as of February 22, 2013 was 28,486,975.

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

December 31, 2012

i

Table of Contents

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.

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 II, Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation, Risk Factors, of 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 and its consolidated subsidiaries. The Company conducts its business through its subsidiaries, AMVAC Chemical Corporation (“AMVAC”), GemChem, Inc. (“GemChem”), 2110 Davie Corporation (“DAVIE”), Quimica Amvac de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“AMVAC M”), AMVAC de Costa Rica Sociedad Anonima (“AMVAC CR”), AMVAC Switzerland GmbH (“AMVAC S”), AMVAC do Brasil Representácoes Ltda (“AMVAC B”), AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd. (“AMVAC UK”), AMVAC CV (“AMVAC CV”), AMVAC Netherlands BV (“AMVAC BV”) and Envance Technologies, LLC (“Envance”).

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

AMVAC

AMVAC is a California corporation that traces its history from 1945. AMVAC is a specialty chemical manufacturer that develops and markets products for agricultural and commercial uses. It manufactures and formulates chemicals for crops, 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 manufactures, distributes, and formulates its own proprietary products or custom manufactures or formulates for others. AMVAC has historically expanded its business through both the acquisition of established chemistries (which it has revived in the marketplace) and the development and commercialization of new compounds through licensing arrangements. Below is a description of the Company’s acquisition/licensing activity over the past five years.

On November 30, 2012, AMVAC, along with TyraTech, Inc. (“TyraTech”), a Delaware corporation that specializes in developing, marketing and selling pesticide products containing essential oils and other natural ingredients formed Envance, a Delaware limited liability company. The Company holds a 60% equity interest in Envance and TyraTech holds 40% equity interest. Envance will develop and commercialize pesticide products and technologies in global consumer, commercial, professional, crop protection and seed treatment markets. Envance is headquartered at TyraTech’s facility in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

On October 7, 2011, AMVAC completed the acquisition of the international rights to the cotton defoliant product tribufos (sold under the trade name Def ^®) from Bayer CropScience AG (“BCS AG”). The acquired assets include registrations and data rights, rights relating to manufacturing and formulation know-how, inventories, and the trademark Def. Def complements AMVAC’s existing cotton defoliant product Folex^®, which it has marketed since 2002. This acquisition also complements the U.S. rights to Def that the Company purchased from BCS AG in July 2010 (see below). Both Folex and Def are fast and effective cotton defoliants that facilitate the removal of leaves surrounding the cotton boll and in combination with other products function as a harvest aid. AMVAC had acquired the U.S. rights to Def from BCS AG on July 21, 2010.

On December 20, 2010, AMVAC completed the acquisition of a global product line relating to the active ingredient tebupirimfos from BCS AG. The acquired assets include product rights (registrations and data rights, rights relating to manufacturing and formulation know-how), inventories, the trademarks Aztec^®, Azteca^® and Capinda^® and customer lists associated with these products. When combined in a mixture with another active ingredient Cyfluthrin, the resulting dual active ingredient product is a leading insecticide that is registered in the United States as Aztec and in Mexico as Azteca, where it is used to combat such soil borne insects as rootworm, cutworm, wireworm, seed corn maggots/beetles and white grub in a variety of corn crops. Additionally, it is registered in South Korea (and sold under the trade name Capinda) for use primarily in vegetable crops such as Chinese cabbage and ginseng.

1

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

On December 7, 2010, AMVAC completed the acquisition of a global insecticide product line relating to the active ingredient ethoprophos (sold under the trade name Mocap^®) from BCS AG. The acquired assets include product rights (registrations and data rights, rights relating to manufacturing and formulation know-how), inventories, the Ultima^® packaging system, the trademarks Mocap and Ultima and customer lists associated with the product. Mocap is a leading soil insecticide that is registered in 50 countries where it is used to combat nematode species in a wide range of crops.

On December 7, 2010, AMVAC completed the acquisition of a global (except for Europe and Argentina) insecticide product line relating to the active ingredient fenamiphos (sold under the trade name Nemacur^®) from BCS AG. The acquired assets include product rights (registrations and data rights, rights relating to manufacturing and formulation know-how), inventories, the trademark Nemacur and customer lists associated with the product. Nemacur is a leading soil insecticide that is registered in 30 countries for use primarily as a nematicide with additional efficacy against above ground sucking insects.

On October 14, 2010, AMVAC and Kanesho Soil Treatment completed agreements with Certis-USA regarding the crop protection product Basamid^® (dazomet) under which AMVAC became the exclusive distributor and registration holder for this granular soil fumigant in the United States. Certis-USA, will continue to market Basamid into non-food crop applications under a distribution agreement with Amvac. Basamid complements the strong market position of AMVAC’s Vapam^® & K-Pam^® soil fumigant brands. The Company will be developing the use of Basamid for high-valued crop segments such as strawberries, tomatoes, lettuce & spinach and will be responsible for the re-registration of dazomet in the United States.

On May 16, 2008, AMVAC completed the acquisition of the phorate (sold by the Company under the Trade name Thimet^®) insecticide product line from Aceto Agricultural Chemicals Corporation (“Aceto AG”). Thimet is used on agricultural crops, mainly potatoes, corn, cotton, rice, sugarcane and peanuts, to protect against chewing and piercing-sucking insects. Purchased assets included registrations, data, know-how and certain inventories. The acquisition was undertaken in connection with the settlement of litigation between AMVAC and Aceto AG.

On March 7, 2008, AMVAC acquired from Bayer Cropscience LP (“BCS LP”) certain assets at BCS LP’s facility located in Marsing, ID (the “Marsing Facility”). The Marsing Facility consists of approximately 17 acres of improved real property, 15 of which are now owned by AMVAC and two of which are leased by AMVAC from the City of Marsing for a term of 25 years. The acquired assets primarily include real property, buildings and manufacturing equipment. In connection with the acquisition, AMVAC and BCS LP agreed to enter into a master processor agreement under which AMVAC is providing certain tolling services to BCS LP for a period of four years.

On January 16, 2008, AMVAC acquired from Valent U.S.A. Corporation the Orthene^® insecticide product line. Orthene is used on agricultural crops, including beans, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, celery, cotton, cranberries, head lettuce, mint and ornamental and forests. AMVAC purchased the proprietary formulation information, registration rights, marketing materials, certain intellectual property rights and existing inventories of the agricultural and professional product lines.

Seasonality

The agricultural chemical industry, in general, is cyclical in nature. The demand for AMVAC’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, weather related pressure from pests and customer marketing programs.

Backlog

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

2

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Customers

Tenkoz, Crop Production Services, Inc. (formerly United Agri Products, Western Farm Services and Crop Production Services), and Winfield Solutions, LLC accounted for 24%, 19%, and 10% respectively of the Company’s sales in 2012; 26%, 18%, and 11% in 2011; and 23%, 19% and 11% in 2010.

Distribution

AMVAC distributes its products domestically predominantly through national distribution companies (see “Customers” above) that purchase AMVAC’s goods on a purchase order basis, and, in turn, sell them to retailers/growers/end-users. The company’s domestic and international distributors typically have long-established relationships with retailers/end-users, far-reaching logistics and transportation capabilities, and customer service expertise. The markets for AMVAC products vary by region, target crop, use and type of distribution channel. AMVAC’s distributors are expert at addressing these markets. Internationally, the company sells product either via its sales offices in the Netherlands, Mexico or Cost Rica, via employed sales force executives located in France, Canada and Venezuela, or via sales agents in other territories.

Competition

AMVAC faces competition from many domestic and foreign manufacturers in its marketplaces. Competition in AMVAC’s marketplace is based primarily on quality, efficacy, price, safety and ease of application. Many of our competitors are larger and have substantially greater financial and technical resources than AMVAC. AMVAC’s ability to compete depends on its ability to develop additional applications for its current products and expand its product lines and customer base. AMVAC 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 most cases, AMVAC has attempted to position itself in smaller niche markets which are no longer addressed by larger companies.

Manufacturing

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

Raw Materials

AMVAC utilizes numerous companies, as well as internal sources, 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, AMVAC seeks to secure its supply by either long-term (multi-year) arrangements or purchasing on long lead times from its suppliers. AMVAC believes that it is considered to be a valued customer to such sole-source suppliers.

Intellectual Property

AMVAC’s proprietary product formulations are protected, to the extent possible, as trade secrets and, to a lesser extent, by patents. Further, AMVAC’s trademarks bring value to its products in both domestic and foreign markets. Although AMVAC considers that, in the aggregate, its trademarks, licenses, and patents constitute a valuable asset, it does not regard its business as being materially dependent upon any single trademark, license, or patent.

EPA Registrations

AMVAC’s products also receive protection afforded by the effect 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 AMVAC’s products are subject to USEPA registration and 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 it is used according to approved label directions. All states, where any of AMVAC’s products are used, require a registration by that specific state before it can be marketed or used in that state. State registrations are renewed annually, as appropriate. The

3

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

USEPA and state agencies have required, and may require in the future, that certain scientific data requirements be performed on registered products sold by AMVAC. AMVAC, on its own behalf and in joint efforts with other registrants, has furnished, and is currently furnishing, certain 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 testing and the production of new products. AMVAC expensed $17,809, $15,496, and $10,023 during 2012, 2011 and 2010 respectively, related to gathering this information. See also PART II, Item 7 of this Annual Report on form 10-K for discussions pertaining to research and development expenses.

Environmental

During 2012, 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. Depending on the findings of these investigations, the Facility might also be required to develop and implement remedial measures to address any historical environmental impairment.

This activity then took two paths: the RCRA permit closure and the larger site characterization. With respect to the 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 site characterization, soil and groundwater characterization activities began in December 2002 in accordance with the Site Investigation Plan that was approved by the DTSC. Additional activities were conducted from 2003 to 2011, with oversight provided by the DTSC. Additional review of groundwater and soil data is being conducted in response to federally-mandated initiatives of similarly affected sites. Risk assessment activities have concluded, and the company will prepare and submit a remedial action plan in 2013. Until the remedial action plan has been submitted and comments are received from DTSC, it is uncertain whether the cost associated with further investigation and potential remediation activities will have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements or its results of operations. Thus, the Company is unable to determine whether remediation is probable, nor can the cost of remediation be reasonably estimated (the scope can vary depending upon the risk assessment and many other factors). Accordingly, the Company has not set up a loss contingency with respect thereto.

AMVAC is subject to numerous federal and state laws and governmental regulations concerning environmental matters and employee health and safety at the Axis, AL; Commerce, CA; Marsing, ID; and Hannibal, MO facilities. AMVAC 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 AMVAC’s operations.

AMVAC expends substantial funds to minimize the discharge of materials in the environment and to comply with the governmental regulations relating to protection of the environment. Wherever feasible, AMVAC recovers 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, 2012, the Company employed 504 employees. From time to time, due to the seasonality of its business, AMVAC 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.

4

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Domestic operations

AMVAC is a California corporation incorporated in 1971. It is the Company’s main operating subsidiary. It owns and/or operates the Company’s domestic manufacturing facilities and is also the parent company for all its foreign corporations. AMVAC manufactures, formulates, packages and sells its products predominantly in the USA and, in 2012, in 54 other countries. AMVAC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

GemChem is a California corporation incorporated in 1991 and purchased by the Company in 1994. GemChem is a national chemical distributor. GemChem, in addition to purchasing key raw materials for the Company, also sells into the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutritional markets. Prior to the acquisition, GemChem acted in the capacity of the domestic sales force for the Company (from September 1991). GemChem is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

DAVIE currently owns real estate for corporate use only. See also PART I, Item 2 of this Annual Report. DAVIE is a wholly owned subsidiary of AVD.

On November 30, 2012, AMVAC and TyraTech, formed a Delaware limited liability company, Envance, in which the Company owns 60% of the equity interest. Envance will develop and commercialize pesticide products and technologies in global consumer, commercial, professional, crop protection and seed treatment markets.

Export Operations

In July 2012, the Company formed AMVAC CV and AMVAC BV, which are incorporated in the Netherlands, for the purpose of managing foreign sales on behalf of the Company.

The Company opened an office in 2008 in Costa Rica to conduct business in Costa Rica and other countries in Central America. The office is operated by AMVAC CR and markets chemical products for agricultural and commercial uses.

The Company opened an office in Basel, Switzerland in 2006. The office is operated by AMVAC S. The Company formed the new subsidiary to expand its resources dedicated to business development opportunities.

The Company also formed a Brazilian entity in 2006 operating as AMVAC B. It functions primarily to maintain the company’s registrations in that country.

The Company opened an office in 1998 in Mexico to conduct business primarily in Mexico. The office is operated by AMVAC M and markets chemical products for agricultural and commercial uses.

The Company opened an office in 1994 in the United Kingdom. The office is operated by AMVAC UK and manages product registrations for AMVAC’s product lines throughout Europe.

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

5

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Risk Management

The Company regularly monitors matters, whether insurable or not, that could pose material risk to its operations. The Company’s Board of Directors has formally assumed responsibility for risk oversight; in 2010, the Board formed a Risk Committee, which, consists of three members of the Board of Directors. It should be noted that, usually, all members of the Board attend the regular meetings of the Risk Committee. The committee meets regularly with senior management to evaluate the Company’s risk profile, to identify mitigation measures and to ensure 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 several of the most material risks facing the Company; these groups perform analysis with the benefit of operational knowledge. Over the course of 2012, the company continued to implement an enterprise risk management program, which extends to all areas of potential risk and is intended to serve as a permanent feature in the Company’s operation. 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.

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”). Such reports are also 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 our 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.

The regulatory climate has grown increasingly challenging to the Company’s interests both domestically and internationally—Various agencies within the U.S. government continue to exercise increased scrutiny in permitting continued uses (or the expansion of such uses) of older 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 even more pronounced in certain other geographical regions, most especially the European Union and Brazil, where the Company faces resistance to the continued use of certain of its products. There is no guarantee that this climate will change in the near term, nor is there any guarantee that the Company will be able to maintain or expand the uses of many of its products in the face of these regulatory challenges.

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 and state statutes, including FIFRA, the Food Quality Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, 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 or state 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 USEPA in the course of registration, re-registration or label expansion. It is possible that one or more of these challenges could succeed, resulting in a material adverse effect upon one or more of our 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 registration and re-registration requirements, and are conditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA. 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 they 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

6

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

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 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.

The manufacturing of the Company’s products is subject to governmental regulations—The Company currently owns and operates three manufacturing facilities 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 terms and conditions imposed by required licenses and permits by 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 its products in a timely and affordable manner.

The Company faces competition in certain markets from manufacturers of genetically modified seeds—The Company faces competition from larger companies that market genetically modified (“GMO”) seeds in certain of the crop protection sectors in which the Company competes, particularly that of corn. Many growers that have chosen to use GMO seeds have reduced their use of the types of pesticides sold by the Company. Further, the federally mandated “refuge acre” requirement for corn (which, in the name of preventing pest resistance, required growers using GMO seeds to set aside a percentage of their planting acres for non-GMO seed), has been sharply reduced. There is no guarantee that the Company will maintain its market share or pricing levels in sectors that are subject to competition from GMO seed marketers or that federal mandates to set aside acreage for non-GMO seed will continue.

The Company is dependent upon certain sole source suppliers for certain of its active ingredients—In conjunction with the purchase and/or licensing of various product lines (including Mocap, Nemacur, Impact^® and Force^®), the Company has been required by sellers/licensors to enter into multi-year supply arrangements under which such counterparties are the sole source of either active ingredients and/or formulated end-use product. In some cases, the manufacturer has been unable to deliver the volume of product necessary to meet the Company’s demand. Further, certain manufacturers have expressed a desire to discontinue production of such goods earlier than anticipated. In one case, the manufacturer has entered the market as a competitor. There is no guarantee that these sole source manufacturers 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. In addition, while the Company is making efforts to transfer production of certain of these products to its own facilities, there is no guarantee that these initiatives will be successful or that they will be completed in a timely fashion so as to permit the Company to meet market demand in the short to mid-term. If these sources prove to be unreliable and the Company is not able to supplant or otherwise second source these manufacturers, it is possible that the Company will not realize its projected sales, which, in turn, could adversely affect the Company’s results of operation.

The Company may be subject to environmental liabilities—While the Company expends substantial funds to minimize the discharge of materials into the environment and to comply with governmental regulations relating to protection of the environment and its workforce, federal and state authorities may nevertheless seek fines and penalties for violation of the various laws and governmental regulations. Further, these various governmental agencies could, among other things, impose liability on the Company for cleaning up the damage resulting from the release of pesticides and other agents into the environment. In addition, while the Company continually adapts its manufacturing processes to the environmental control standards of regulatory authorities, it cannot completely eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from hazardous or regulated materials. In the event of such contamination or injury, the Company may be held liable for significant damages or fines. In the event that such damages or fines are assessed, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operation.

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, and customer marketing programs and requirements. 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 reduce the Company’s revenues and profitability. There can be no assurance that the Company will adequately address any adverse seasonal effects.

The Company faces competition from generic competitors that source product from countries having lower cost structures—The Company continues to face competition from competitors that may enter the market through making offers to pay data compensation and then subsequently may source material from countries having lower cost structures

7

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

(typically India and China). These competitors typically tend to operate at thinner gross margins and, with low costs of goods, can drive pricing and profitability of subject product lines downward. Further, such competitors typically spend little on product stewardship and employ few personnel within the United States. In effect, they may attempt to commoditize all products which they distribute; that is, they operate by offering the lowest price goods. There is no guarantee that the Company will maintain market share over generic competitors or that such competitors will not offer generic versions of the Company’s products in the future.

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, who 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. Further, these distributors are often under pressure to market competing product lines in favor of the Company’s. 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.

To the extent that capacity utilization is not fully realized at its manufacturing facilities, the Company may experience lower profitability—The Company has pursued a business strategy of acquiring manufacturing facilities at a steep discount to their replacement value. These acquisitions have enabled the Company to be more independent of overseas manufacturers than some of our competitors. While the Company endeavors continuously to maximize utilization of these several facilities, our success in these endeavors is dependent upon many factors beyond our control, including fluctuating market conditions, product life cycles, weather conditions, availability of raw materials and regulatory constraints, among other things. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to maximize its utilization of capacity at its manufacturing facilities. To the extent that the Company experiences excess manufacturing capacity, it may experience lower profitability.

Reduced availability and higher prices of raw materials may reduce the Company’s profitability and could threaten the viability of some of its products—In the recent past, there has been a material reduction in the number of suppliers of certain important raw materials used by the Company in many of its products. Certain of these raw materials are available solely from sources overseas or from single sources domestically. In the recent past, the price of these raw materials has fluctuated sharply. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to source some or all of these materials indefinitely or that it will be able to do so at a level of cost that will enable it to maintain its profit margin on its products.

Foreign currency and interest rate risk and the use of derivative instruments and hedging activities—The Company engages in global business transactions. Where possible, the Company does business in its functional currency. However, there are certain situations in which the Company is unable to transact in its functional currency and engages in agreements that require settlement in a different currency. The Company may enter into derivative instruments to manage foreign currency risk of these agreements; in other words, it may, from time to time establish a forward exchange rate at the point of placing a purchase order and thereby insure the Company against movement in the exchange rate. In addition, the Company may use interest rate derivatives to manage interest rate expense generated by variable rate debt. The Company has in place one fixed interest rate swap with the objective of reducing the Company’s exposure to movements in the LIBOR rate over time. This is required as a condition of the Company’s Senior Credit Facilities agreement.

Dependence on the Company’s banking relationship—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 primary bank for more than 30 years. Bank of the West is the syndication manager for the Company’s loans and acts as the counterparty on the Company’s derivative transactions. The Company reviews the creditworthiness of its banks on a quarterly basis via credit agencies and also has face-to-face meetings with senior management of the banks. Management believes that the Company has an excellent working relationship with Bank of the West and the other financial institutions in the Company’s lender group. In light of the uncertainties in global financial markets, there is no guarantee, however, 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 is dependent on a limited number of customers, which makes it vulnerable to the continued relationship with and financial health of those customers—In 2012, three customers accounted for 53% of the Company’s sales. The Company’s future prospects will 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 our current significant 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 financial condition and results of operation.

8

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

None

9

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

The Company’s corporate headquarters are located in Newport Beach, California. This facility is leased.

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 and some of its warehouse facilities and 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 2001, AMVAC completed the acquisition of a manufacturing facility from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”). The 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 primarily to manufacture pyrethroids and organophosphates.

On December 28, 2007, AMVAC, pursuant to the provisions of the definitive Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 27, 2006 between AMVAC and Badische Anilin-und Soda-Fabrik (“BASF”), through which AMVAC purchased the global Counter product line from BASF. AMVAC purchased certain manufacturing assets relating to the production of Counter and Thimet 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 from the Hannibal Site.

On March 7, 2008, AMVAC acquired from BCS LP a facility (the “Marsing Facility”) located in Marsing, ID, which consists of approximately 17 acres of improved real property, 15 of which are owned by AMVAC and two of which AMVAC leases from the City of Marsing for a term of 25 years. The Marsing Facility is engaged in the blending of liquid and powder raw materials and the packaging of finished liquid products in the agricultural chemical field. With this acquisition, AMVAC acquired the ability to formulate flowable materials. In connection with the acquisition, AMVAC and BCS LP agreed to enter into a master processor agreement under which AMVAC provides certain third party manufacturing services to BCS LP on an ongoing basis that continues in 2013.

On October 1, 2012, AMVAC BV entered into a lease for approximately 215 square meters of office space located at Houten, the Netherlands. The lease has a 3 year term. These offices will serve as the headquarters of the Company’s international sales function, including customer service, finance, regulatory and planning/logistics.

The production areas of AMVAC’s facilities are designed to run on a continuous 24 hour per day basis. AMVAC regularly adds chemical processing equipment to enhance its production capabilities. AMVAC believes its facilities are in good operating condition and are suitable and adequate for current needs, can be modified to accommodate future 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 loan 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.

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

GemChem’s, AMVAC UK’s, AMVAC M’s, AMVAC CR’s and AMVAC S’s facilities consist of administration and sales offices which are leased.

10

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

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 AMVAC 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. The USEPA suspension was partially based on 1977 studies by other manufacturers that indicated a possible link between male fertility and exposure to DBCP among their factory production workers involved with producing the product.

At present, there are approximately 100 lawsuits, foreign and domestic, filed by former banana workers in which AMVAC has been named as a party. Fifteen of these suits have been filed in the United States (with prayers for unspecified damages) and the remainder have been filed in Nicaragua. Three of these domestic suits were brought by citizens of Nicaragua, while the other domestic suits have been brought by citizens of other countries. These claims are all in various stages and allege injury from exposure to DBCP, including claims for sterility. Only two of the suits (Suazo and Castillo, indicated below) filed in Nicaragua have been served on AMVAC. It should be noted that Nicaraguan plaintiffs had not been able to obtain domestic enforcement of decisions rendered by Nicaraguan courts. The Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a U.S. District Court’s refusal to enforce a $97,000 Nicaraguan judgment rendered against certain US-based DBCP defendants finding, among other things, lack of international due process.

As described more fully below, activity in domestic cases during 2012 is as follows: in Hawaii, Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al which had been dismissed in 2011, remains on appeal; and Adams, from which co-defendant Dole was dismissed, is on appeal with respect to such dismissal and, at any rate, involves claims that pre-dated AMVAC’s sales into the relevant market. In Louisiana and Delaware, there has been much overlapping activity. Three actions filed in Louisiana state court (Soriano et al) in November 1999 have been dismissed due to expiration of the statute of limitations; similarly, seven cases filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Aguilar et al) have been dismissed for the same reason – no appeal has yet been taken in either venue. In Delaware, the Blanco case (involving a single Costa Rican claimant) has survived defendants’ motion to dismiss for expiration of the statute of limitations, the lower court finding that such statute was extended under the doctrine of cross jurisdictional tolling. However, the Delaware Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of this decision. Also, in Delaware, HendlerLaw, P.C. filed nine matters during 2012, eight with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and one before the Delaware state court (Chaverri). Six of the federal matters were identical to claims then pending before the Louisiana courts and, upon defendants’ motion, were dismissed by the Delaware federal court. Two of the eight Delaware cases (Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) (involving claims brought on behalf of 2,700 plantation workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama) remain pending and are the subject of motions to dismiss.

Delaware Matters

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC, The Dow Chemical

11

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Dole Food Company. In the action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility) arising from the alleged exposure to DBCP between 1979 and 1980 while working as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa Rica. Defendant Dow filed a motion to dismiss the action as being barred under the applicable statute of limitations, as this same plaintiff filed the same claim in Florida in 1995 and subsequently withdrew the matter. Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class certification, which was denied. AMVAC contends that the plaintiff could not have been exposed to any DBCP supplied by AMVAC in Costa Rica. On August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow’s motion to dismiss based upon applicable statutes of limitation. In response to that denial, on August 20, 2012, defendants filed a motion for interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations). Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter is stayed. It is expected that the Delaware Supreme Court will issue its ruling in 2013. Whatever the outcome on appeal, AMVAC intends to defend the matter vigorously. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for the matter.

On or about May 31, 2012 (the day on which the trial court in—Blanco denied defendants’ motion to dismiss), HendlerLaw, P.C., which represents plaintiffs in seven related matters that had been pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “Hendler-Louisiana Cases” referred to in the Company’s Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 as Aguilar et al., v. Dole Fruit Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of LA No. CV-01305-CJB-SS)), filed nine separate actions, eight with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Hendler – Delaware Cases” (USCD DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA)) and one with the Superior Court of the State of Delaware (which, for purposes of this filing shall be referred to as Chaverri et al. v. Dole Food Company, Inc. et al., case no. N12C-06-017-JOH). Amvac received these complaints by mail on or about July 21, 2012. Six of the eight Hendler – Delaware cases and Chaverri involve claims for personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf of 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama. Dole subsequently brought a motion to dismiss these seven matters under the “first-to-file” theory of jurisdiction, specifically in light of the fact that they involved identical claims and claimants as those appearing in the Hendler – Louisiana cases. On August 21, 2012, the U.S. District Court in the Hendler-Delaware cases granted defendants’ motion to dismiss six complaints (filed on behalf of 235 plaintiffs) finding that the same claimants and claims were pending in the Hendler-Louisiana cases where they had been first filed. In October 2012, the federal district court in Louisiana granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Hendler-Louisiana Cases for plaintiffs’ failure to bring the action within the applicable statute of limitations. Further, with the stay of proceedings in Blanco, the Chaverri action has also been stayed, pending a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court (as previously described). With respect to the subject matter of Chaverri, at this stage of the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency.

Two of the eight Hendler-Delaware Cases (namely, Abad-Castillo and Marquinez) are unrelated to the Hendler-Louisiana Cases and, involve 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. Defendants are investigating possible defenses to Abad-Castillo and Marquinez, including whether any of the claimants had appeared in prior actions that may have been settled or dismissed, what statutes of limitations may apply, and whether claimants used any of defendants’ products. Amvac intends to defend these matters vigorously. Defendant Dole has brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-Castillo case on the ground that they were parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases. In September 2012, plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss, arguing that, in fact, while 14 of the 22 claimants were parties in the Hendler-Louisiana cases, eight of them were not. With respect to the Marquinez matter, the company has filed an answer to the complaint. No discovery has commenced in either of these matters and it is too early to predict whether a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the company has not set up a loss contingency on either of these matters.

Hawaiian 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 Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawaii (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. The ten named plaintiffs are variously citizens of four countries—Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers allegedly so exposed in these four countries.

12

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in 1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs’ counsel unsuccessfully argued that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010. On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which is presently pending. In March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable statute of limitations. Following the completion of briefing on April 8, 2011, counsel for plaintiffs filed a pleading to withdraw and to substitute new counsel. The court has not ruled on any of the pending motions, nor do the court rules require that the court rule by any particular date. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

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: Adams v. Dole Food Company et al in the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and names Dole Food Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company, Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil Company, Dow Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical 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 little discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of its product could have been used at the times and locations alleged by these plaintiffs. Dole Food Company was dismissed on the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker’s compensation benefits, as it was the employer of plaintiffs. However, plaintiffs have been granted relief to seek an interim appeal as to the dismissal of Dole, which appeal is pending. A stay has been placed on discovery other than to obtain written records. Recent pleadings included a request for withdrawal of plaintiffs’ counsel and substitution of new counsel. The substitution was denied by the court on November 14, 2012. There is no estimated date of opinion. The Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

Louisiana Matters (Federal)

On June 1, 2011, seven separate actions were filed by HendlerLaw, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of 259 individual plaintiffs (banana plantation workers from Ecuador, Panama and Costa Rica) against Dole Food Company, the Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, and AMVAC Chemical Corporation (to name a few) which, for purposes of convenience here, are encaptioned Aguilar et al., v. Dole Food Company, Inc., et al (U.S.D.C., E.D. of Louisiana No. CV-01305-CJB-SS). These matters allege personal injury (including sterility, cancer, skin disorders and other conditions) arising from alleged exposure to DBCP within the time period from 1960 through 1985 or later. A number of the plaintiffs appear to have been drawn from earlier DBCP litigation matters filed by HendlerLaw, P.C., including, for example, the Mendez case that was dismissed from state court in Hawaii (see the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011). In September 2012, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment based upon the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. No appeal has been filed. The Company will defend any appeal vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for these matters.

Louisiana Matters (State)

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; we have reported on these matters under the name of the lead case, Eduardo Soriano, et al. v. AMVAC, et al. These matters allege personal injuries to about 314 persons (approximately 167 from Ecuador, 102 from Costa Rica, and 45 from Guatemala) from alleged exposure to DBCP. 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 HendlerLaw, P.C. from the cases being pursued 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 HendlerLaw, P.C. 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 action. In mid-June 2011, some 12 years after filing the actions, plaintiffs have propounded written discovery against defendants. In

13

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

November 2012, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all of these cases on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired. No appeal has yet been filed. AMVAC intends to defend any appeal vigorously. With respect to these matters, the Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss contingency for this matter.

Nicaraguan Matters

In May 2005, two suits filed in Nicaragua in 2004 were received that name AMVAC, The Dow Chemical Company, Dole Food Company, 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. On January 25, 2006, AMVAC was served with the Suazo and Castillo suits, and 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; this ruling has been appealed.

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 two cases, Castillo and Suazo, 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 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.

However, to date, plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic companies before U.S. courts. One such judgment (not including the Company) was entered in August 2005 for $97,000 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 $802,000 against Dow Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Standard Fruit Company for some 1,200 plaintiffs. An enforcement action (entitled Osorio) against Dole and Dow for the $97,000 judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court in Miami, Florida. In this enforcement action, on October 20, 2009, the federal court issued a lengthy decision refusing to enforce the judgment on the grounds that Law 364 violated due process of law and that the Nicaraguan courts were not impartial tribunals. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal on March 10, 2010. On March 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision to refuse to enforce the Nicaraguan judgment under the Florida Recognition Act, finding, among other things, the fact that judgment had been rendered under a system (in Nicaragua) that does not provide procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law and was contrary to public policy. The 11^th Circuit Court did not address whether the Nicaraguan courts “do not provide impartial tribunals” as the district court had found.

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 set up a loss contingency for these matters.

B. Other Matters

Brazilian Citation. On or about October 5, 2009, IBAMA (the Brazilian equivalent of the USEPA) served AMVAC Brazil with a Notice of Violation alleging that two lots of Granutox 150 (formulated product having phorate as the active ingredient) stored at BASF S.A. (AMVAC’s exclusive distributor in Brazil) and FMC Quimica do Brasil Ltda. (which formulates end-use product in that country) were not in compliance with the end-use registration on file with IBAMA. Specifically, IBAMA alleged that the color of the lots (gray) was inconsistent with the description in IBAMA’s files (pink). IBAMA also indicated an intention to assess a fine of approximately $200 against AMVAC B. The Company has challenged the citation, for among other reasons, on the ground that the change in color has to do with the removal of a coloring component and that such removal poses no environmental or toxicity risk. In March 2011, IBAMA denied AMVAC B’s first appeal. The Company believes, however, that the agency is statutorily prevented from levying a fine of this magnitude for an infraction of this nature. Thus, the Company has filed another appeal on these grounds and expects to hear a response during 2013. At this stage, the Company believes that a loss of between $150 and $200 is probable and has set up a loss contingency in the amount of $150.

14

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Not Applicable

15

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

PART II

Market Information

Effective March 6, 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.

The following table sets forth the range of high and low sales prices as reported for the Company’s Common Stock for the calendar quarters indicated (as adjusted for stock splits and stock dividends).

Holders

As of February 22, 2013, the number of stockholders of the Company’s Common Stock was approximately 7,070, which includes beneficial owners with shares held in brokerage accounts under street name and nominees.

Dividends

On December 3, 2012, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.10 per share. The dividend was distributed on December 21, 2012, to shareholders of record at the close of business on December 11, 2012.

On September 17, 2012, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.07 per share. The dividend was distributed on October 12, 2012, to shareholders of record at the close of business on September 28, 2012.

On March 8, 2012, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.05 per share. The dividend was distributed on April 16, 2012, to shareholders of record at the close of business on April 1, 2012.

On September 8, 2011, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.05 per share. The dividend was distributed on October 14, 2011, to shareholders of record at the close of business on September 29, 2011.

On March 10, 2011, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.03 per share. The dividend was distributed on April 15, 2011 to stockholders of record at the close of business on April 1, 2011.

On September 14, 2010, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.02 per share. The dividend was distributed on October 14, 2010 to stockholders of record at the close of business on September 24, 2010.

On March 4, 2010, the Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.01 per share. The dividend was distributed on April 16, 2010 to stockholders of record at the close of business on April 2, 2010.

The Company has issued a cash dividend in each of the last sixteen years dating back to 1996.

16

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

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, 2007. All calculations assume reinvestment of dividends. Returns over the indicated period should not be considered indicative of future returns.

17

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

The selected consolidated financial data set forth above with respect to each of the calendar years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2012, 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 for the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012. See ITEM 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation.”

The 2012 dividends per share include a special dividend of $.10 per share that was declared and paid in December 2012.

18

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

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. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “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.

19

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Results of Operations

2012 Compared with 2011:

The 2012 agricultural market conditions were somewhat better than those of 2011. Persistent strong global demand for food, animal feed, natural fiber and bio-fuel feed stocks continued to spur higher than normal crop commodity prices. As a result, growers invested more heavily in yield enhancing inputs which fueled demand for many of the Company’s most important crop protection products. This was particularly true in corn, where strong demand and a rising crop commodity price led to increased planted acreage in the United States. In 2012, a record 97 million acres of corn were planted; over 87 million acres were harvested; and yield per acre was depressed to approximately 123 bushels from an average yield of closer to 150 bushels in prior years. The drop in yield arose from a persistent drought in parts of the Midwest and Southwest.

This extreme mid-season and late-season drought did not affect the use of the Company’s important granular soil insecticides since these products are applied at the time of planting. The drought of 2012 also affected U.S. cotton growers and destroyed nearly 23% of planted acreage, mostly in Texas. However, in other Southern and Southeastern states weather conditions were somewhat more favorable, allowing AMVAC to achieve excellent sales of its cotton insecticides and harvest defoliants.

Adding to the challenges of meeting excess demand and coping with problematic weather, the continuing practice of planting corn on the same acres year-after-year (versus sequential rotation of corn and soybeans) has intensified primary & secondary insect pest pressure in the Midwest United States. Furthermore, over the past few seasons, growers (particularly of corn) have increasingly adopted the use of conventional chemistry as an important part of integrated pest management, both to control resistant pests and to help improve yield. Additionally, with the widespread use of glyphosate herbicides over the last 15 years, many growers are having to cope with hard-to-control weeds & grasses through other means, including complementary herbicides. As a result, the Company has experienced increased demand for its soil insecticides and post-emergent herbicide products for corn.

Overall financial performance (including net sales and net income) for the year ended December 31, 2012 improved as compared to the same period in 2011. The Company’s total net sales for the period were up 22% to $366,190 compared to $301,080 for the year ended December 31, 2011. Net sales of our crop business in 2012 were $329,540, which constitutes an increase of 21% over the net sales of $272,068 for that segment in 2011. Net sales of our non-crop products in 2012 were $36,650, which constitutes an increase of 26% over the net sales of $29,012 in the same period last year. A more detailed discussion of product groups and products having a material effect on net sales for each of the crop and non-crop segments appears below.

20

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

In the Crop segment of our business, net sales of insecticides in 2012 increased to $194,060 which represents a 41% increase as compared to $137,460 for the comparable period in 2011. This included approximately 6% related to price and 35% to increased volume. Within this segment, annual net sales of our granular soil insecticides were up more than 50% over 2011, driven by a strong performance from our primary corn soil insecticides – Aztec, Smartchoice^®, Counter^® and Force. Our Mocap and Nemacur granular insecticides/nematicides benefited from an average 3% selling price increase and remained relatively flat on volume with improved supply of Mocap, offsetting some volume shortfall on Nemacur. Annual net sales of Thimet grew by nearly 33% over the prior year including approximately 5% related to price, primarily on peanut acres, in sugar cane fields and as a preferred substitute for a withdrawn competitive insecticide (aldicarb). Among our non-granular insecticide products, net sales for crop applications grew by 11% led by our foliar cotton insecticide Bidrin. Sales of bifenthrin, permethrin and acephate remained flat with the prior year, as we continued to de-emphasize the applications of these products that have become susceptible to low-priced generic competition.

Within the product group of herbicides/fungicides/fumigants, our crop net sales in 2012 were down about 1% to $89,899 vs. $90,782 in 2011. Within this group, we had mixed results. Net sales of our herbicide products were down 24%, resulting from the timing of sales and supply availability for our post-emergent corn herbicide, Impact. Actual “on-the-ground” use of Impact increased 22% in 2012 despite supply limitations and the effects of the severe Midwest summer drought. Our fumigants sales volume increased approximately 3% as our Vapam and K-Pam^® products continue to be domestic market leaders in this product category. Net sales of our fungicides were up 36% in 2012, as we continue to recapture market share in potatoes with our PCNB product range. There were no price increases on PCNB.

Within the crop segment of other products group (which includes plant growth regulators, molluscicides and third party manufacturing activity), we experienced an increase of 4% in net sales during 2012, $45,581 vs. $43,826 in 2011. We had record sales performance for Folex, a defoliant used in cotton harvest management. This included slightly lower overall volumes in line with cotton acres harvested but increased pricing as the market recognized the benefits of this brand. NAA^®, our leading plant growth regulator, primarily used in apples to stop apple drop, the return of bloom and later in the season for thinning blossom, had a significant gain of 31%. Net sales of metaldehyde, (a molluscicide) were up 5% over the comparable 2011 period; and third party manufacturing revenues decreased by approximately 28% in 2012 as compared to 2011.

Within our non-crop segment, 2012 net sales were up over 26% to $36,650 vs. $29,012 compared to 2011. Naled^® sales (our Dibrom brand mosquito adulticide) were up by 19% (including average 6% selling price increase), with moderate storm and hurricane activity and despite continued drought conditions in portions of the Southeast. Net sales of pest strips increased 20% in volume and approximately 4% in selling price as compared to the prior year, as professional pest control operators continue to recognize that these products are among the most effective residual pest deterrents in commercial applications. Additionally, net sales of our PCNB fungicide for turf uses tripled, as we continue to recover market share following our reentry to the market. The Company has yet to re-enter the Canadian market following the expiration of its registration at the end of 2010. We are also pleased to report that initial sales from Envance (our new Joint Venture with TyraTech) were recorded in the weeks leading up to December 31, 2012. The business sells very effective organic aerosol products through Home Depot stores. These products target crawling, flying or stinging insects. Offsetting these gains, we experienced a decline in Pharmaceutical sales of approximately 26% primarily due to generic competition from China.

Our cost of sales for 2012 was $205,065 or 56% of net sales. This compared to $178,012 or 59% of net sales for 2011. The decline in cost of sales as a percentage of net sales in 2012 arose primarily from these factors. In 2012 the Company continued to focus on selling those products having higher margins or lower costs. This included a further drop in manufacturing activities for third parties as increased demand for plant capacity generated less incentive to drive this aspect of the business. Typically, such activities enable us to cover costs but do not generate much, if any, gross profit. Furthermore, our sales in 2012 have been focused on our strongest brands that are targeted at specific problems that have been impacting agriculture in the year and products that tend to have strong margin performance throughout the supply chain. As detailed in

21

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

the table, the change in volume, mix, price and manufacturing activity resulted overall in a 3% improvement in gross margin to 44% in 2012 as compared to 41% for the same period of the prior year. This included the benefit of selling prices that increased on average by 5% offset by approximately 2% increase in raw material costs.

Operating expenses in 2012 increased by $17,960 to $101,802 or 28% of sales as compared to $83,842 or 28% in 2011. The differences in operating expenses by department are as follows:

Total Interest expense was $2,466 in 2012, as compared to $3,457 in 2011. Interest costs are summarized in the following table:

22

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

The Company’s average overall debt for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $57,248 as compared to $72,908 for the comparable period of the previous year. During the year we operated the business without accessing our revolving debt facility by continued focus on inventory, receivables and program management. As can be seen from the above table, on a gross basis, our effective interest rate increased to 3.7% as compared to 3.4% last year. The increase is caused by the fixed interest rate swap, which is required as part of the Company’s credit agreement. After deductions of capitalized interest and including expenses related to the amortization of deferred liabilities, our effective rate was 4.3% for 2012 as compared to 4.7% in 2011. This is a reduction in comparison to the prior year primarily as a result of lower amortization of discounting on deferred liabilities related to product line acquisitions.

Income tax expense for 2012 amounted to $20,026 as compared to $13,155 for 2011. The 2012 effective tax rate was 35.2%, as compared to an effective rate of 37.3% for 2011. The decrease in effective tax rate is primarily due to increased benefit from domestic production activities, Alabama income tax capital credit and the deductible stock based compensation.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (the “Act”) was signed into law on January 2, 2013. The Act retroactively restored several expired business tax provisions, including the research and experimentation credit. Because a change in tax law is accounted for in the period of enactment, the retroactive effect of the Act on the Company’s U.S. federal taxes for 2012 of a benefit of approximately $250 will be recognized in 2013.

Net income attributable to American Vanguard increased 67% ended at $36,867 or $1.28 per diluted share in 2012 as compared to $22,068 or $.79 per diluted share in 2011.

The 2011 financial statements have been revised to appropriately reflect the correct application of generally accepted accounting principles. The 2011 balance sheet has been revised to reflect an increase in current deferred tax assets by $3,417 and an increase in non-current deferred tax liabilities by a similar amount which was previously incorrectly presented on a net basis with the Company’s non-current deferred tax liabilities. This revision had no impact on previously reported 2011 amounts for stockholders’ equity, gross margin, net income, earnings per share or cash flows from operations. The Company concluded that this revision was not material to previously issued financial statements.

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 provide us with adequate liquidity to meet our anticipated operating needs for at least the next 12 months. Although operating activities are expected to provide cash, to the extent of significant 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 facilities. 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, 2012, and the effects such obligations are expected to have on liquidity and cash flow in future periods:

There were no off-balance sheet arrangements as of December 31, 2012.

Under the terms of the credit facility, all debt outstanding is due when the agreement expires on January 10, 2016.

23

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Results of Operations

2011 Compared with 2010:

2011 agricultural market conditions were generally better than those of 2010. Strong global demand for food, animal feed, natural fiber and bio-fuel feed stocks spurred higher than normal crop prices. In light of these market conditions, growers invested more heavily in yield enhancing inputs which fueled demand for many of the Company’s most important crop protection products. Rising crop commodity prices also led to an increase in acreage planted for many crops in the United States, particularly corn and cotton, which are important to our business. In 2011, a near record 92,000+ acre of corn were planted and cotton acreage expanded to 13,000 acres from 11,000 acres one year ago and just 9,000 acres two years ago.

In addition, the practice of planting corn on the same acres year-after-year (referred to as “corn-on-corn” as opposed to rotating crops) gave rise to greater primary & secondary insect pest pressure in the Midwest United States. Further, years of continuous application of glyphosate herbicides has led to resistant weeds & grasses and increased the need for complementary/auxiliary herbicide use. Also, the wide-spread use of genetically modified seeds/plants in U.S. corn during the last decade has engendered resistance among some soil insects that had been controlled by genetic plant defenses. The cumulative effect of all these factors led to increased demand for the type of crop protection products for corn that the Company supplies.

Overall financial performance (including net sales and net income) for the year ended December 31, 2011 improved as compared to the same period in 2010. Our net sales for the period were up approximately 33% to $301,080 as compared to $226,859 for the year ended December 31, 2010. Net sales of our crop business in 2011 were $272,068 which constitutes an increase of about 34% over the net sales of $203,393 in 2010. Net sales of non-crop products for the period were $29,012, which constitutes an increase of about 24% over the net sales of $23,466 in the same period last year. A more detailed discussion of product groups and products having a material effect on net sales for each of the crop and non-crop segments appears below.

24

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

Further, the Company’s 2011 sales benefited from the acquisition of several new products acquired in the second half of 2010. The addition of the insecticides Aztec 2.1, Mocap and Nemacur accounted for approximately half of the Company’s $68,675 year-over-year gain in crop sales. We also benefitted from the withdrawal of a competitive insecticide product in the U.S. market, which yielded improved sales of our granular insecticide Thimet.

With respect to our crop segment, net sales of our insecticides in 2011 were up strongly to $137,460 representing an increase of approximately 63% as compared to $84,500 for the comparable period in 2010. Within this segment, annual net sales of our granular soil insecticides were up approximately 125% over the same period, driven by a strong performance from our primary corn soil insecticides – Aztec, Smartchoice, Counter and Force. This product group also benefitted from the newly acquired Mocap and Nemacur granular insecticides/nematicides which were purchased in December 2010 – despite the fact that we experienced a shortfall in supply of Mocap during 2011 from our source. Annual net sales of Thimet grew by more than one half over the prior year due to increased peanut acres, increased use for nematode control in sugar cane and the above-mentioned substitution for a withdrawn competitive insecticide (aldicarb). Among our non-granular insecticide products, overall net sales declined by nearly 12%. Our foliar cotton insecticide, Bidrin, decreased compared to the prior year due to severe drought conditions in the Southern region. Further, sales of bifenthrin, permethrin and orthene declined approximately 27% as we de-emphasize the applications of these products that have become susceptible to low-priced generic competition; however, despite the drop in net sales, we experienced improved overall levels of gross profit from these three products. Offsetting these declines, sales of our Dibrom insecticide, which has historically been used primarily for mosquito control, continued to expand in crop/citrus applications.

Within the product group of herbicides/fungicides/fumigants, net sales in 2011 were up about 5% over the 2010 year ($90,782 vs. $86,780). Within this group we had mixed results. Net sales of our herbicide products were up 13%, led by our post-emergent corn herbicide, Impact, which Midwest farmers use as a highly effective product to combat the increasing challenge of glyphosate tolerant weeds. Our fumigants sales were up modestly as our Vapam and K-Pam products continue to be U.S. market leaders in this product category. Net sales of our fungicides, however, were down during 2011 as compared to 2010; this was due to the fact that all domestic sales of PCNB were suspended following the issuance of a SSURO in August 2010, partially offset by the issuance of new labels in November 2011.

Within the segment of other products (which includes plant growth regulators, molluscicides and third party manufacturing activity), we experienced a nearly 36% increase in net sales during 2011 as compared to 2010 ($43,826 vs. $32,113). This increase is primarily due to strong sales of Folex, a defoliant used in cotton harvest management; while certain cotton regions experienced severe drought conditions, in other areas, cooler than normal conditions caused the growers to use the product at higher use rates. Net sales of Folex were also positively impacted by our acquisition of the domestic Def (tribufos) product line in late July 2010. Partially offsetting Folex’s gains was a slight drop in net sales of NAA, a plant growth regulator primarily used in apples to stop apple drop, the return of bloom, and for thinning blossom. Net sales of metaldehyde (a molluscicide) were approximately flat over the comparable 2010 period; and third party manufacturing revenues decreased by approximately $4,000 in 2011 as compared to 2010. Finally, it should be noted that, included in sales in 2010 was data compensation in the amount of $868. There was no similar revenue recorded in 2011.

Within our non-crop segment, net sales were up by about 24% ($29,012 v. $23,466) compared to 2010. On the positive side, Naled sales were up despite limited hurricane activity and persistent drought conditions in the Southwest, early season river flooding caused greater pest pressure and spraying activity. In the same segment, net sales of pest strips increased 17% over the prior year as professional pest control operators continue to recognize that our active ingredient, DDVP, is one of the most effective general pest control agents available today. Offsetting these gains was a decline in net sales of our PCNB fungicide for turf uses. As mentioned above, all domestic sales had been suspended through late November 2011, when USEPA issued new labels. Consequently, the Company missed most of the turf season. In addition, the Company has yet to re-enter the Canadian market following the expiration of its registration at the end of 2010.

Our cost of sales for 2011 was $178,012 or 59% of net sales. This compared to $140,538 or 62% of net sales for 2010. The decline in cost of sales as a percentage of net sales in 2011 arose primarily from these factors. In 2011 the Company focused on selling those products having higher margins or lower costs. At the same time, we de-emphasized sales of those products that are subject to pricing pressure from generic competition (e.g., acephate, bifenthrin and permethrin) which products typically have a high cost of sales as compared to the market selling price. Further, with increased demand for plant capacity relating to the production of our own products, we allowed a drop in manufacturing activity for third parties. Typically, such activities enable us to cover costs but do not generate much, if any, gross profit. As detailed in the above table, the change in volume, mix, price and manufacturing activity resulted overall in a 3% improvement in gross margin to 41% in 2011 as compared to 38% for the same period of the prior year.

25

Table of Contents

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

AND SUBSIDIARIES

(Dollars in thousands, except per share data)

The 2011 financial statements have been revised to appropriately reflect the correct application of generally accepted accounting principles. Net sales and cost of sales for the year ended December 31, 2011 have each been decreased by $3,349 to appropriately reverse an improper gross-up. This revision had no impact on previously reported 2011 amounts for stockholders’ equity, gross margin, net income, earnings per share or cash flows from operations. The Company concluded that this revision was not material to previously issued financial statements.

Operating expenses in 2011 increased by $16,712 to $83,842 or 28% of sales as compared to $67,130 or 30% in 2010. The differences in operating expenses by department are as follows:

Total interest expense was $3,457 in 2011, as compared to $3,017 in 2010. Interest costs are summarized in the following table: