Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
September 14, 2026
Future crop protection company will be a strongly capitalized market leader with compelling value proposition for farmers, shareholders
Corteva, Inc. (NYSE: CTVA) categorically rejects the attempt by a number of State Attorneys General to prevent Corteva’s planned separation. The planned separation of the company will result in the creation of two companies built to lead their respective industries. The crop protection company, which will retain the Corteva brand, will be an innovation-driven market leader at a time when innovative, safe, effective crop protection has never been more needed by farmers fighting intensifying pest, disease and weed pressures that rob yield and threaten food security.
Corteva will vigorously defend its planned separation against the attempt by the State Attorneys General to stop it on the basis of alleged PFAS liabilities. The underlying claims on which this extraordinary relief is sought are speculative and unproven, relying on novel legal theories and groundless assumptions. California and the other States petitioning for this relief do not have judgments against Corteva. They do not even have trials scheduled against Corteva related to PFAS liability.
Moreover, in its seven-year history, Corteva has never made, sold or traded PFOA or PFOS products. Corteva’s balance sheet will be well-equipped to cover any liability it might face.
“As we’ve stated from the beginning, our planned separation is an acknowledgement that our two businesses have different business models and will better deliver for farmers separately than they do together – meaning that the separation should result in stronger companies built for growth,” said Corteva Chief Legal Officer Jennifer Johnson. “Corteva neither has nor has demonstrated any intent to hinder, delay, or defraud our creditors.”
“Companies need flexibility to engage in transactions like this to continue to innovate and generate value for their customers and shareholders,” said Johnson. “States are seeking extraordinary and, we believe, unprecedented relief, and in doing so, they are asking the court to supplant the judgment of our Board of Directors as well as our senior management team. We firmly believe the separation is in the best interest of our stakeholders and empowers each company to pursue its ideal strategy to enhance shareholder value. We will vigorously defend our ability to make decisions about our own company, including its separation, in every way possible.”
Topics
Species
