Fifteen states and Guam sued EIDP, Corteva and Vylor on the day Vylor became independent. Their complaint alleges that a seeds business worth about $40 billion left Old DuPont, while its PFAS liabilities stayed.
On October 1, 2026, spinoff day, Indiana led 14 other states and Guam in suing to tie Old DuPont's PFAS liabilities to Vylor's seeds business. Indiana Attorney General Theodore E. Rokita leads the coalition, and its complaint and jury trial demand, filed in Marion Superior Court 1, names EIDP, Corteva and Vylor under Indiana's Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. The complaint alleges: “In connection with the Spinoff, Vylor received the crown jewels of Old DuPont’s business but did not assume any of its PFAS liabilities.” The complaint alleges about $40 billion in asset value went to Vylor for about $5 billion in value returned to Old DuPont. The states want the assets frozen while they try to undo the transfer.
The filing bears a 10:48 a.m. clerk stamp. Its plaintiffs are Indiana, Alaska, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Washington, plus Guam. The Vermont Attorney General's account of the filing identifies Indiana as the lead state.
The 5 sources behind this story: 4 government records and 1 other source, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
The complaint describes a sequence of transfers. Corteva consolidated its seeds business under Pioneer, an Old DuPont subsidiary. Old DuPont then contributed its interest in Pioneer to Vylor. Next, Old DuPont distributed Vylor shares to Corteva, which distributed them to Corteva shareholders. Vylor became an independent public company. According to the complaint, Old DuPont retained the PFAS liabilities.
That sequence is the states' target. The complaint alleges that the seeds business was worth approximately $40 billion as a going concern, while Old DuPont retained a crop protection business worth approximately $14 billion. It alleges that Old DuPont received approximately $5 billion through distributions and a debt exchange for the transferred seeds assets. Those are the plaintiffs' valuations, not findings by the court.
Count I, the actual fraudulent transfer claim, alleges that Old DuPont and Corteva intended to hinder, delay or defraud creditors through the Vylor transfers. Count II, the constructive fraudulent transfer claim, alleges that they did not receive reasonably equivalent value and were insolvent, or became insolvent, as a result. The second claim rests on the alleged shortfall in value and the companies' ability to pay their debts.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The states ask the court to avoid the transfers to the extent needed to satisfy their claims, declare Vylor responsible for those claims, and place the transferred property or value in a constructive trust. They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent orders restricting further transfers. The requested restraint reaches Vylor's disposition of the property it received and Old DuPont's and Corteva's disposition of spinoff proceeds or other property for less than reasonably equivalent value.
That makes the seeds business the contested source of recovery. **Analysis:** This is a closing-day fraudulent transfer action, and its stakes run to collectibility, not liability. A PFAS judgment against Old DuPont is worth what Old DuPont can pay. The Indiana Attorney General's October 1 announcement says the transfer moved the seeds business out of reach of "the states and other PFAS plaintiffs." If the states obtain the requested relief, the value they allege moved to Vylor could remain available for their PFAS claims. The filing does not decide those claims or establish the states' asset valuations. It asks the court to keep the alleged recovery path open.
The same announcement describes the proposed immediate order as stopping DuPont and Corteva from using remaining funds for dividends and stock buybacks, and stopping Vylor from selling or pledging the seeds assets. The complaint asks for temporary, preliminary and permanent orders, and the proposed restraining order is the first of them: preserve the property now, then decide whether the transfer can stand.
The Indiana Attorney General's announcement said the temporary restraining order hearing was set for October 2 at 9 a.m. ET. A hearing notice is not an order. On October 5, three days after the scheduled hearing, the Tennessee Attorney General still described the order as a request: “The coalition has asked a Marion County, Indiana court for a temporary restraining order to preserve the assets.”
Corteva's stated position predates this filing. Reuters, in a report carried by Claims Journal, reported that Corteva said in September that the states' PFAS claims are “speculative and unproven,” adding that Corteva itself never made or sold PFAS products. The complaint, meanwhile, alleges that the spinoff left Old DuPont unable to satisfy “the tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars in PFAS liabilities” it still faces. The transfer case now turns on a live question for the Indiana court: what property, if any, must stay within reach while the transfer claims proceed?
According to the complaint, Corteva distributed Vylor's shares to its shareholders as part of the completed spinoff. In No. 49D01-2610-CE-054574, the states ask Marion Superior Court 1 to follow the seeds business across that completed separation. In the complaint's words, Vylor got the “crown jewels.” Old DuPont, the states allege, kept the PFAS liabilities while about $40 billion in asset value went to Vylor and about $5 billion in value came back. As of Tennessee's October 5 announcement, the coalition still "has asked" for the restraining order, and the complaint also seeks a preliminary injunction. An order on the freeze request would show whether the court restricts further transfers while the lawsuit proceeds.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.