Tennessee AG: Sues DuPont Over PFAS Asset Shifting Scheme

• Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has sued EIDP (DuPont), Corteva, and Vylor over alleged asset shifting.
• The lawsuit claims valuable assets were moved to Vylor, leaving DuPont with vast PFAS "forever chemicals" liabilities.
• A specific transaction on October 1, 2026, transferred DuPont and Corteva’s Pioneer seeds business, moving three-quarters of their value.
• States allege DuPont knew about PFAS dangers for decades but concealed risks, leading to tens of billions in contamination costs.
• The coalition seeks a temporary restraining order in Indiana to prevent asset dissipation and ensure accountability for PFAS manufacturers.

Central to the EIDP Corteva Vylor PFAS litigation are allegations that DuPont possessed knowledge, or should have possessed knowledge, regarding the hazards associated with PFAS for several decades.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has launched a significant lawsuit against EIDP, historically known as DuPont, its parent company Corteva, and the recently established entity Vylor. The legal action, filed today, centers on allegations that these corporations engaged in a strategic maneuver to transfer DuPont’s most valuable assets while simultaneously attempting to isolate its substantial liabilities, particularly those stemming from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as "forever chemicals." This Tennessee AG sues DuPont PFAS asset shifting case highlights a growing concern among states regarding corporate accountability for environmental damages.

Attorney General Skrmetti articulated the state's stance, asserting that such corporate actions represent an attempt to evade responsibility. He emphasized that the state intends to vigorously challenge these efforts, stating that the practice of concentrating liabilities in one company and assets in another, while seemingly clever, is unlawful. The Jonathan Skrmetti DuPont lawsuit aims to ensure that companies deemed responsible for PFAS contamination are held financially accountable, thereby facilitating the necessary cleanup of waterways and mitigating long-term environmental damage for future generations.

The bipartisan, multistate lawsuit specifically targets a transaction that became effective on October 1, 2026. This arrangement involved the transfer of DuPont and Corteva’s Pioneer seeds business to Vylor. According to the coalition of states, this particular transaction effectively moved approximately three-quarters of the combined value previously held by DuPont and Corteva, while leaving DuPont to bear the brunt of its considerable PFAS liabilities. The states contend that this restructuring was designed to protect assets from environmental claims.

Central to the EIDP Corteva Vylor PFAS litigation are allegations that DuPont possessed knowledge, or should have possessed knowledge, regarding the hazards associated with PFAS for several decades. Despite this, the company is accused of deliberately withholding critical information about the chemicals' risks from regulatory bodies, consumers, and the general public. The widespread presence of PFAS forever chemicals liability has led to significant contamination of drinking water sources across the United States, imposing potential costs estimated in the tens of billions of dollars for states and taxpayers who must address the pollution and safeguard public health.

In response to these alleged corporate asset protection strategies, the coalition of states has petitioned a Marion County, Indiana court for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The proposed order seeks to prevent DuPont and Corteva from utilizing any remaining funds for activities such as dividends or stock buybacks. Furthermore, it aims to prohibit Vylor from selling or pledging the valuable seed assets it acquired through the contested transaction. This legal maneuver underscores the urgency with which states are approaching the issue of corporate responsibility in environmental matters.

This specific legal challenge forms a crucial component of a broader, multistate PFAS accountability initiative. States are collectively working to ensure that manufacturers of PFAS are held responsible for the substantial environmental and public health costs associated with these dangerous and persistent chemicals. The litigation reflects a determined effort to compel polluters to finance the remediation efforts and compensate for the societal burdens created by widespread PFAS contamination.

Lawyers advising on corporate restructuring, M&A, or divestitures, particularly for companies with significant environmental liabilities like PFAS, must be aware of the heightened scrutiny and aggressive legal challenges from state attorneys general. Compliance officers should review their corporate structures and asset transfer strategies to ensure they are robust against claims of attempting to evade environmental accountability.

Source: Reporting based on recent legal developments.