16 states sue over Corteva–Vylor split, alleging PFAS assets were shifted

Fifteen states and Guam filed a lawsuit October 1 in Marion Superior Court in Indiana against Corteva, EIDP Inc. and Vylor, the seed company created by Corteva’s separation. The complaint seeks to unwind asset transfers and asks for temporary restrictions while the case proceeds. Corteva’s September 30 securities filing described the planned distribution of Vylor shares, and independent coverage reported that the separation was completed the next day.[1][6][3][5]

The plaintiffs allege that Vylor received seed-business assets worth about $40 billion, while EIDP received about $5 billion in value through a distribution and debt exchange. They characterize the transaction as leaving EIDP with legacy PFAS liabilities while moving valuable assets to Vylor. Those numbers, the transfer’s effect on creditors and the allegation of fraudulent intent are claims in the complaint, not independently established valuations or judicial findings.[1][3][5]

The requested temporary order would limit Corteva and EIDP’s use of remaining assets, including dividends and stock repurchases, and bar Vylor from selling or pledging the seed assets it received. The states also ask the court to void transfers they challenge. The request describes what the plaintiffs want the judge to do; it does not show that the court issued an injunction.[4][1][2]

EIDP is the legal entity historically known as E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, and Corteva’s filing identifies Corteva and EIDP as separate registrants. The states say they need the transferred assets available if they later prove claims for PFAS contamination. The defendants have not been found liable in this new case, and a corporate allocation of liabilities does not by itself resolve whether a transfer is voidable under state law.[1][6][3]

The Indiana case is separate from an earlier effort by California and other governments to delay the spinoff in federal court in South Carolina. Corteva’s filing says the federal court denied California’s motion before the separation; a securities filing reports procedural history, not a decision on the underlying PFAS allegations. The new Indiana complaint is therefore a distinct state-court action that challenges transfers after the corporate split went forward.[6][3][5]

In a September 14 statement responding to the earlier California-led request, Corteva called the claims speculative and unproven, said it had never made or sold PFOA or PFOS products, and said its balance sheet would be equipped to cover liabilities it might face. That statement predates the Indiana case and is not a response to its complaint; the Indiana Lawyer reported Corteva did not immediately respond to its request for comment on the new suit.[7][3]

The complaint and proposed order establish the relief the states requested, not what the court did with the request at the October 2 hearing listed in contemporaneous coverage. The sources cited here do not establish the hearing’s disposition. The asset-freeze request should therefore be read as unresolved in this account, and the underlying fraudulent-transfer claims remain allegations unless and until a court rules on them.[1][4][3][2]

The near-term legal question is whether the court will preserve assets while the states litigate. A temporary order, if entered, would not decide whether PFAS claims are valid or whether the spinoff was unlawful; denial would likewise not resolve the merits. The available record leaves both the requested interim relief and the ultimate liability questions distinct.[4][1][5]