Published October 19, 2026
A bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 15 states and the territory of Guam filed suit in Indiana's commercial court on October 1, 2026 — the same day Corteva completed its spinoff of Vylor, the new publicly traded company that holds Corteva's seed and genetics business. The states argue the separation was structured to move the company's most valuable assets beyond the reach of people and governments pursuing PFAS claims against the former DuPont.
The defendants are EIDP, Inc. (the entity formerly known as "Old DuPont"), Corteva, and Vylor. The participating states are Indiana, Alaska, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.
The complaint is built on fraudulent-transfer law, including Indiana's version of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. According to the states, Old DuPont received roughly $5 billion in value in exchange for assets worth around $40 billion that ended up in Vylor — and, unlike earlier DuPont restructurings in which the new companies agreed to take on a share of the historical PFAS liabilities, Vylor did not. Reuters reported that PFAS exposure tied to the former DuPont entities could ultimately run to tens of billions of dollars.
As a first step, the states asked the court for a temporary restraining order that would stop Vylor from selling or pledging the assets it received, and would limit dividends and share buybacks while the case proceeds. The sources we reviewed do not confirm that any such order has been entered.
Corteva has called the states' claims speculative and unproven, and has said it never made or sold PFAS products. Old DuPont has since removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, citing federal officer jurisdiction — the same theory tied to the government-contractor defense it raises in the federal firefighting-foam (AFFF) litigation.
The Indiana suit followed an unsuccessful attempt by California to halt the spinoff. California had asked for emergency relief inside the AFFF multidistrict litigation in South Carolina, and a federal judge there denied that request the day before the separation took effect.
This case doesn't decide whether anyone was harmed by PFAS. It's about whether the money will be there if they were. Thousands of PFAS lawsuits name the former DuPont companies, and individual personal-injury claims in the AFFF MDL still have no global settlement. How courts treat the Vylor transfer could affect how much is ultimately available to pay future judgments and settlements.
If you believe you were exposed to PFAS through contaminated drinking water or a workplace and later developed a related illness, see Atumio's PFAS contamination case page for a free eligibility review, or start your case review directly.