Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE 15 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Guarantees

Indemnifications

In connection with acquisitions and divestitures, the company has indemnified respective parties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with these transactions and business activities prior to the completion of the transactions. The term of these indemnifications, which typically pertain to environmental, tax and product liabilities, is generally indefinite. In addition, the company indemnifies its duly elected or appointed directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, against liabilities incurred as a result of their activities for the company, such as adverse judgments relating to litigation matters. If the indemnified party were to incur a liability or have a liability increase as a result of a successful claim, pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, the company would be required to reimburse the indemnified party. The maximum amount of potential future payments is generally unlimited. See below for additional information relating to the indemnification obligations under the Chemours Separation Agreement and the Corteva Separation Agreement.

Obligations for Supplier Finance Programs

The company enters into supplier finance programs with various finance providers in which the company agrees to pay these finance providers the stated amount of confirmed invoices from participating suppliers by the original maturity date. The company or the finance provider may terminate the agreement upon providing at least thirty days’ written notice. The payment terms that the company has with its finance providers under supplier finance programs are less than one year. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the outstanding obligations under supplier finance programs was approximately $121 million and $88 million, respectively, and included within accounts payable in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The rollforward of the company’s outstanding obligations confirmed as valid under its supplier finance programs for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2025 is as follows:


(In millions)
Confirmed obligations outstanding at December 31, 2023	$	115
Invoices confirmed during the year	571
Confirmed invoices paid during the year	(598)
Confirmed obligations outstanding at December 31, 2024	$	88
Invoices confirmed during the year	690
Confirmed invoices paid during the year	(657)
Confirmed obligations outstanding at December 31, 2025	$	121

Obligations for Customers and Other Third Parties

The company has directly guaranteed various debt obligations under agreements with third parties related to customers and other third parties. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the company had directly guaranteed $71 million and $64 million, respectively, of such obligations. These amounts represent the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments that the company could be required to make under the guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed party. The maximum future payments include $5 million and $4 million of guarantees related to the various factoring agreements that the company enters into with third-party financial institutions to sell its trade receivables at December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. See Note 9 - Accounts and Notes Receivable - Net, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, for additional information.

The maximum future payments also include agreements with lenders to establish programs that provide financing for select customers. The terms of the guarantees are equivalent to the terms of the customer loans that are primarily made to finance

customer invoices. The total amounts owed from customers to the lenders relating to these agreements was $234 million and $223 million at December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.

The company assesses the payment/performance risk by assigning default rates based on the duration of the guarantees. These default rates are assigned based on the external credit rating of the counterparty or through internal credit analysis and historical default history for counterparties that do not have published credit ratings. For counterparties without an external rating or available credit history, a cumulative average default rate is used.

Indemnifications under Separation Agreements

The company has entered into various agreements where the company is indemnified for certain liabilities. The term of this indemnification is generally indefinite, with exceptions, and includes defense costs and expenses, as well as monetary and non-monetary settlements and judgments. In connection with the recognition of liabilities related to these matters, the company records an indemnification asset when recovery is deemed probable.

Chemours Separation Agreement (Performance Chemicals)

Pursuant to the Chemours Separation Agreement resulting from the 2015 spin-off of the Performance Chemicals segment from Historical DuPont, Chemours indemnifies the company against certain litigation, environmental, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the distribution.

In 2017, the Chemours Separation Agreement was amended to provide for a limited sharing of potential future liabilities related to alleged historical releases of perfluorooctanoic acids and its ammonium salts (“PFOA”) for a five-year period that began on July 6, 2017. Additionally, in January 2021, a binding memorandum of understanding as described below replaced the potential future liability sharing arrangements established in the 2017 amendment to the Chemours Separation Agreement. At December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the indemnification assets from Chemours were $138 million and $43 million, respectively, within accounts and notes receivable - net and $470 million and $280 million, respectively, within other assets in the interim Consolidated Balance Sheets. These indemnification assets are regularly assessed for collectability and the company has concluded that these assets are recoverable. The liabilities subject to Chemours indemnification are considered stray liabilities under the Corteva Separation Agreement. Therefore, if Chemours fails to indemnify the company, these stray liabilities are subject to proportionate cost sharing between Corteva and DuPont, on a 29 percent and 71 percent basis, respectively, as further described in this footnote below.

On May 13, 2019, Chemours filed suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against DuPont, EIDP, and Corteva, seeking, among other things, to limit its responsibility for the litigation and environmental liabilities allocated to and assumed by Chemours under the Chemours Separation Agreement (the “Delaware Litigation”). On March 30, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted a motion to dismiss. On December 15, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. Meanwhile, a confidential arbitration process regarding the same and other claims proceeded (the “Arbitration”).

On January 22, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva and EIDP entered into a binding memorandum of understanding resolving legal disputes originating from the Delaware Litigation and Arbitration, and establishing a cost sharing arrangement and escrow account supporting and managing potential future legacy per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) liabilities arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (the “MOU”). The MOU replaced a prior 2017 amendment to the Chemours Separation Agreement. According to the terms of the MOU, Corteva and DuPont together, on one hand, and Chemours, on the other hand, agreed to a 50-50 split of certain qualified expenses related to PFAS liabilities incurred over a term not to exceed twenty years or $4 billion of qualified spend and escrow account contributions (see below for discussion of the escrow account) in the aggregate. DuPont’s and Corteva’s 50 percent share under the MOU will be limited to $2 billion, including qualified expenses and escrow account contributions. These expenses and escrow account contributions will be subject to the existing Letter Agreement, under which DuPont and Corteva will each bear 50 percent of the first $300 million (up to $150 million each), and thereafter DuPont bears 71 percent and Corteva bears the remaining 29 percent. Under the terms of the MOU, Corteva’s estimated aggregate share of the potential $2 billion is approximately $600 million.

In order to support and manage any potential future PFAS liabilities, the parties also agreed to establish an escrow account (“MOU Escrow Account”). The MOU provides that (1) no later than each of September 30, 2021 and September 30, 2022, Chemours shall deposit $100 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $100 million in the aggregate into an escrow account and (2) no later than September 30 of each subsequent year through and including 2028, Chemours shall deposit $50 million into an escrow account and DuPont and Corteva shall together deposit $50 million in the aggregate into an escrow account. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the MOU, each party may be permitted to defer funding in any year (excluding 2021). Over this period, Chemours will deposit a total of $500 million in the account and DuPont and Corteva will deposit an additional $500 million pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement. Additionally, if on December 31, 2028, the balance of the escrow account (including interest) is less than $700 million, Chemours will make 50

percent of the deposits and DuPont and Corteva together will make 50 percent of the deposits necessary to restore the balance of the escrow account to $700 million, pursuant to the terms of the Letter Agreement. Such payments will be made in a series of consecutive annual equal installments commencing on September 30, 2029, pursuant to the escrow account replenishment terms as set forth in the MOU. The MOU provides that no withdrawals from the MOU Escrow Account can be made before year six, except to fund mutually agreed upon third-party settlements in excess of $125 million. Starting with year six, withdrawals can only be made to fund qualified spend if the parties’ aggregate qualified spend in that particular year is greater than $200 million. Beginning with year 11, the amounts in the MOU Escrow Account can be used to fund any qualified spend.

In April 2024, Corteva, EIDP, DuPont, and Chemours received a final judgment resolving all drinking water claims related to PFAS of a defined class of U.S. public water systems that serve the vast majority of the United States population (the “Nationwide Water District Settlement”). In connection with the Nationwide Water District Settlement, the MOU was supplemented to waive funding due to the MOU Escrow Account by Chemours, DuPont and Corteva for 2023 provided that each party fully funds its portion of the Nationwide Water District Settlement and said settlement is consummated. The funding obligation to the MOU Escrow Account with respect to 2024 and due September 30, 2024 was to be waived if (i) between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024, the parties had entered into settlement agreements resolving liabilities under the MOU that in the aggregate exceed $100 million; (ii) each company had fully funded its respective share, in accordance with the MOU, of such settlements; and (iii) such settlements were consummated. No such waiver was triggered for the 2024 escrow funding obligation due September 30, 2024 and, therefore, the company made its required contribution.

The company made its annual installment deposits due to the MOU Escrow Account through December 31, 2025. The MOU escrow account contains $105 million as of December 31, 2025, representing the aggregate contributions from Chemours, DuPont and Corteva, less withdrawals to fund related settlements.

After the term of this arrangement, Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the original 2015 Chemours Separation Agreement, would continue unchanged, subject in each case to certain exceptions set out in the MOU. Under the MOU, Chemours waived specified claims regarding the construct of its 2015 spin-off transaction, and the parties dismissed the pending arbitration regarding those claims. Additionally, the parties have agreed to resolve the Ohio MDL PFOA personal injury litigation (as discussed below). The parties are expected to cooperate in good faith to enter into additional agreements reflecting the terms set forth in the MOU.

The Chemours Separation Agreement obligates Chemours to defend and indemnify EIDP in legacy asbestos cases. As of December 31, 2025, there were approximately 900 pending lawsuits, with most being allegations of personal injury from Historical DuPont contractors. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the company has a litigation accrual of $88 million and $38 million, respectively, and related indemnification assets of $87 million and $38 million, respectively, recorded.

Corteva Separation Agreement

On April 1, 2019, in connection with the Dow Distribution, Corteva, DuPont and Dow entered into the Corteva Separation Agreement, the Tax Matters Agreement ("TMA"), the Employee Matters Agreement, and certain other agreements (collectively, the “Corteva Separation Agreements”). The Corteva Separation Agreements allocate among Corteva, DuPont and Dow assets, employees, certain liabilities and obligations (including its investments, property and employee benefits and tax-related assets and liabilities) and provides for indemnification obligation among the parties. Under the Corteva Separation Agreement, DuPont indemnifies Corteva against certain litigation, environmental, tax, workers' compensation and other liabilities that arose prior to the Corteva Distribution, Dow indemnifies Corteva against certain litigation, environmental, tax, workers' compensation and other liabilities that relate to the Historical Dow business, and Corteva indemnifies DuPont and Dow for certain liabilities.

Under the Corteva Separation Agreements, certain legacy EIDP liabilities from discontinued and/or divested operations and businesses of EIDP (including Performance Chemicals) (a “stray liability”) were allocated to Corteva or DuPont. Costs and liabilities have been shared based on the terms of the Corteva Separation Agreement. All future stray liabilities are allocated to Corteva and DuPont proportionally on the basis of 29 percent and 71 percent, respectively, subject to a $1 million de minimis requirement.

On November 1, 2025, DuPont spun off its electronics business, Qnity Electronics, Inc. ("Qnity"). DuPont, Corteva and Qnity entered into a letter agreement, effective November 1, 2025, affirming that DuPont is not novated from its obligations with respect to Corteva for legacy liabilities allocated to Qnity in its spin-off ("Qnity Letter Agreement"). Additionally, under the Qnity Letter Agreement, Corteva has certain third-party beneficiary rights to enforce indemnity and payment obligations of DuPont's with respect to legacy liabilities allocated to Qnity subject to: (i) DuPont's consent; or (ii) Corteva's receipt of a judgment that includes payment obligations for legacy liabilities attributable to Qnity, and either DuPont does not use commercially reasonable efforts to enforce the payment obligation against Qnity, or DuPont files for bankruptcy.

At December 31, 2025 and 2024, the aggregate indemnification assets from DuPont and Dow were $104 million and $47 million, respectively, within accounts and notes receivable - net and $263 million and $143 million, respectively, within other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the aggregate indemnification liabilities were $26 million and $9 million, respectively, within accrued and other current liabilities and $154 million and $149 million, respectively, within other noncurrent obligations in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Discontinued Operations Activity

For the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024, the company recorded benefits (charges) of $(99) million and $56 million, to income (loss) from discontinued operations after income taxes, in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. The after-tax charge recognized during the year ended December 31, 2025 was driven by charges relating to the MOU with Chemours and DuPont, comprised of a litigation charge associated with the NJ Statewide Settlement as well as PFAS environmental remediation activities primarily at Chemours' Fayetteville Works facility, along with other environmental matters. The after-tax benefit recognized during the year ended December 31, 2024 was driven by charges pursuant to the MOU with Chemours and DuPont relating to PFAS remediation activities primarily at Chemours' Fayetteville Works facility and litigation activity, which were more than offset by a favorable adjustment of certain prior year tax positions for previously divested businesses, the derecognition of an indemnification liability associated with the Water District Settlement Fund contribution, and insurance proceeds related to legacy matters.

Litigation

The company is subject to various legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, product liability, intellectual property, antitrust, commercial, property damage, personal injury, environmental and regulatory matters arising out of the normal course of its current businesses or legacy EIDP businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses but allocated to Corteva as part of the Corteva Separation from DuPont. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings, as considerable uncertainty exists. The company records accruals for legal matters when the information available indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Accruals may reflect the impact and status of negotiations, settlements, rulings, advice from counsel and other information and events that may pertain to a particular matter. For the litigation matters discussed below, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the company could incur liabilities in excess of amounts accrued, for which the ultimate liability could be material to the results of operations and the cash flows in the period recognized. However, the company is unable to estimate the possible loss beyond amounts accrued due to various reasons, including, among others, that the underlying matters are either in early stages and/or have significant factual issues to be resolved. In addition, even when the company believes it has substantial defenses, the company may consider settlement of matters if it believes it is in the best interest of the company. At December 31, 2025 and 2024, current accrued litigation was $874 million and $228 million, respectively, within accrued and other current liabilities. A current indemnification asset of $188 million was recorded within accounts and notes receivable - net at December 31, 2025 in relation to the current accrued litigation. See the "Chemours Separation Agreement (Performance Chemicals)" and the "Corteva Separation Agreement" sections for further details on the indemnifications.

Bayer Dispute

In August 2022, Bayer filed a breach of contract/declaratory judgment lawsuit in Delaware state court against Corteva relating to an agrobacterium cross-license agreement and Enlist E3® soybeans. Bayer alleged that Corteva practiced two Bayer patents in developing Enlist E3® soybeans, and therefore, is entitled pursuant to the terms of the cross-license agreement to royalties for sales between 2019 through 2029, along with interest. In January 2025, the court issued several rulings precluding Corteva's invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses, while also aligning on key aspects of Corteva's patent claim construction. In May 2025, the Delaware state court granted Corteva’s motion for partial summary judgment agreeing that U.S. Supreme Court precedent precludes the collection of royalties after patent expiration. Bayer’s motion for reconsideration was denied in June 2025. In July 2025, a stipulated order allowed Bayer to appeal the summary judgment finding, while also allowing Corteva’s cross-appeal of the dismissal of its invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses.

In August 2022, Corteva filed a lawsuit against Bayer CropScience LLP and Monsanto Company (collectively “Bayer”) in federal court in Delaware for alleged infringement of Corteva’s patented AAD-1 herbicide resistance technology used in Enlist® corn. The complaint for this lawsuit was amended to include additional patents that are closely related to this patented technology for soybeans. Corteva seeks to enjoin Bayer from continuing to infringe, as well as appropriate monetary damages. Bayer has filed an answer to the complaint and has asserted various affirmative defenses including invalidity. In August 2023, the court issued a decision adopting Corteva’s claim construction for all five disputed patent terms subject to this litigation.

In December 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") authorized an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceeding initiated by Bayer to review the patentability of three patents subject to the AAD-1 litigation. Inari joined the IPR proceeding. In

December 2024, the PTAB issued a decision invalidating these patents on the basis they were unpatentable. Corteva appealed this decision and Corteva's AAD-1 lawsuit remains stayed during pendency of the IPR appeal. Corteva holds numerous additional patents covering its Enlist® traits or Enlist® weed control system. Therefore, the IPR process is not expected to impact its ability to license and protect Enlist E3® traits.

In October 2022, Corteva filed a lawsuit against Bayer in Delaware state court seeking a declaration that, under the terms of Corteva’s licensing agreement and the law, Bayer is not entitled to collect patent royalties on the Roundup Ready® Corn 2 trait after Bayer’s U.S. patent protection expires, and therefore is no longer required to pay royalties under the licensing agreement and entitled to recover relevant royalties paid. In September 2024, the court granted Bayer’s motion for summary judgment. Corteva’s appeal was heard by the Delaware Supreme Court, en banc, in May 2025. Additionally, Corteva initiated arbitration of two additional agreements with Bayer seeking similar relief. The Delaware Supreme Court stayed the appeal proceedings pending resolution discussions between Corteva and Bayer.

As of January 2026, the parties agreed to settle the agrobacterium cross-license agreement dispute. In addition, Corteva and Bayer resolved several other disputes regarding post-patent royalties and other matters, including post-patent regulatory support, resulting in the termination or amendment of the related licenses, as applicable. As part of the resolution of these matters, the cross-license agreement has been terminated and Corteva has agreed to a payment of $610 million and to drop its AAD-1 patent claims against Bayer. Also as a result of the resolution of this litigation and the related license terminations and amendments, potential royalty obligations for Corteva's Enlist E3® soybeans, as well as future royalty payments due to Bayer under other licensing agreements in dispute were terminated. The settlement agreements support Corteva's product out-licensing growth in competitive corn, cotton and canola markets, including for the out-licensing of above and below ground triple-stack corn technology. In conjunction with resolution of these matters, the companies also agreed to new cotton licensing arrangements at terms reflective of market rates. There is no remaining litigation between the parties.

Federal Trade Commission Investigation

On May 26, 2020, Corteva received a subpoena from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) directing it to submit documents pertaining to its Crop Protection products generally, as well as business plans, rebate programs, offers, pricing and marketing materials specifically related to its acetochlor, oxamyl, rimsulfuron and other related products in order to determine whether Corteva engaged in unfair methods of competition through anticompetitive conduct. Corteva has fully cooperated with all requests related to this subpoena. On September 29, 2022, the FTC, along with ten state attorneys general in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Texas, filed a lawsuit against Corteva and another competitor alleging the parties engaged in unfair methods of competition, unlawful conditioning of payments, unreasonably restrained trade, and have an unlawful monopoly (the “FTC lawsuit”). In December 2022, attorneys general in Tennessee and Washington joined the FTC lawsuit and the Arkansas state attorney general filed a separate lawsuit against Corteva and another competitor based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit. In July 2025, the Arkansas state attorney general amended the complaint to include methoxyfenozide, cyhalofop, picloram, triclopyr, and aminopyralid products. Several proposed private class action lawsuits were also filed in federal court alleging anticompetitive conduct based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit.

Virtually all of these private lawsuits were centralized into a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In January 2025, federal court for the multi-district litigation granted in part, and denied in part, Corteva's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court order dismissed the plaintiff's federal damages claims and 13 of the 27 state consumer protection act claims. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to include methoxyfenozide products. The trials for these claims are expected to begin in 2027.

Lorsban® Lawsuits

As of December 31, 2024, there were asserted claims for personal injury against the former Dow Agrosciences LLC, alleging injuries related to chlorpyrifos exposure, the active ingredient in Lorsban®, an insecticide used by commercial farms for field fruit, nut and vegetable crops. Corteva ended its production of Lorsban® in 2020. Chlorpyrifos products are restricted-use pesticides, which are not available for purchase or use by the general public, and may only be sold to, and used by, certified applicators or someone under the certified applicator's direct supervision. These lawsuits do not relate to Dursban®, a residential type chlorpyrifos product that was authorized for indoor purposes, which was discontinued over two decades ago prior to the merger of Dow and Historical DuPont and Corteva’s formation and Separation. Claimants allege personal injury, including autism, developmental delays and/or decreased neurologic function, resulting from farm worker exposure and bystander drift and in utero exposure to chlorpyrifos. Certain claimants have also put forth remediation claims due to alleged property contamination from chlorpyrifos. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual has been established for the estimated resolution of certain claims.

Litigation related to legacy EIDP businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses

For purposes of this report, the term PFOA means collectively perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt and does not distinguish between the two forms, and PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), GenX and other perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs").

EIDP is a party to various legal proceedings relating to the use of PFOA by its former Performance Chemicals segment for which potential liabilities would be subject to the cost sharing arrangement under the MOU as long as it remains effective.

Leach Settlement and Ohio MDL Settlement

EIDP has residual liabilities under its 2004 settlement of a West Virginia state court class action, Leach v. EIDP, which alleged that PFOA from EIDP’s former Washington Works facility had contaminated area drinking water supplies and affected the health of area residents. The settlement class has about 80,000 members. In addition to relief that was provided to class members years ago, the settlement requires EIDP to continue providing PFOA water treatment to six area water districts and private well users and to fund, through an escrow account, up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $2 million had been disbursed from the account since its establishment in 2012 and the remaining balance is approximately $1 million.

PFOA Personal Injury Claims

In December 2024, the defendants reached a settlement of all of the currently filed and unfiled personal injury cases in the Ohio MDL for $59 million. The settlement was payable in two installments, with $8 million contributed in aggregate by Corteva. The final installment was paid upon the court dissolving the MDL in March 2025.

Other PFOA Matters

EIDP is a party to other PFOA lawsuits involving claims for property damage, medical monitoring and personal injury. Defense costs and any future liabilities that may arise out of these lawsuits are subject to the MOU and the cost sharing arrangement disclosed above. Under the MOU, fraudulent conveyance claims associated with these matters are not qualified expenses, unless Corteva, Inc. and EIDP would prevail on the merits of these claims.

EIDP did not make film-forming foams, PFOS, or PFOS products. While EIDP made surfactants and intermediaries that some manufacturers used in making foams, which may have contained PFOA as an unintended byproduct or an impurity, EIDP’s products were not formulated with PFOA, nor was PFOA an ingredient of these products. EIDP has never made or sold PFOA as a commercial product.

Aqueous Film-Forming Foams. Approximately 10,100 cases filed against 3M and other defendants, including EIDP and Chemours, and some including Corteva and DuPont, alleging personal injury (primarily kidney, testicular, liver and thyroid cancer) from the use of aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) or contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding in federal district court in South Carolina (“SC MDL”). Most of these recent cases also assert claims that the EIDP and Chemours separation constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

In August 2025, the SC MDL entered multiple case management orders requiring cases filed outside the SC MDL to be transferred to the SC MDL, establishing a 21-day window for unfiled cases to be filed, and allowing the filing of multi-plaintiff complaints. A significant number of new cases asserting personal injury were filed or transferred to the SC MDL. Many of the personal injury cases both inside and outside the SC MDL include and continue to include, as new cases are threatened, multiple plaintiffs. Therefore, the number of plaintiffs asserting such claims is substantially higher than the number of cases set forth above. The first bellwether personal injury trial is expected to be scheduled for 2026. Discussions between the parties on a resolution to these cases remain ongoing.

Nationwide Water District Settlement. On June 1, 2023, Corteva, EIDP, Inc., DuPont, and Chemours (collectively, the “settling companies”) entered into a binding agreement in principle to comprehensively resolve all drinking water claims related to PFAS of a defined class of U.S. public water systems that serve the vast majority of the United States population, including, but not limited to the AFFF claims in the SC MDL, under the Nationwide Water District Settlement, for $1.185 billion in the aggregate. PFAS, as defined in the settlement, includes PFOA and HFPO-DA, among a broad range of fluorinated organic substances. In April 2024, the settlement was deemed final resulting in the release of the previously restricted cash in the Water District Settlement Fund and derecognition of the associated liability. The Nationwide Water District Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by Corteva or EIDP.

The class represented by the Nationwide Water District Settlement is composed of all Public Water Systems, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 300f, with a current detection of PFAS or that are currently required to monitor for PFAS under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (“UCMR 5”) or other applicable federal or state law (the “Class”). Approximately 88 percent of the U.S. is served by systems required to test under UCMR 5. The Class does not include water systems owned and operated by a State or the United States government; small systems that have not detected the presence of PFAS and are not currently required to monitor for it under federal or state requirements; and, unless they otherwise request to be included, water systems in the lower Cape Fear River Basin of North Carolina.

The total number of requests for exclusion (“opt-outs”) was approximately 900 water districts while most public water districts (approximately 93 percent of the Class) remain in the class settlement. The company has been served complaints from opt-outs, as well as water district and municipal authority claims not covered by the Nationwide Water District Settlement.

New Jersey. In late March 2019, the New Jersey State Attorney General filed four lawsuits against EIDP, Chemours, and others alleging that operations at and discharges from former EIDP sites in New Jersey (Chambers Works, Parlin, Pompton Lakes, and Repauno) damaged the State’s natural resources. Two of these lawsuits (those involving the Chambers Works and Parlin sites) allege contamination from PFAS. DuPont and Corteva were subsequently added as defendants to these lawsuits. These lawsuits include claims for remediation, fraudulent conveyance, as well as claims under the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act and the New Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”).

On August 3, 2025, the company, together with Chemours and DuPont agreed to a proposed Judicial Consent Order with the State of New Jersey (the "NJ Statewide Settlement") to resolve all outstanding claims by the State of New Jersey pending against the companies related to the legacy use of a wide variety of substances of concern, including, but not limited to DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquids), chemical solvents, and PFAS. Subject to a public notice and comment period and subject to court approval following that period, the NJ Statewide Settlement will also resolve legacy claims related to four Historical DuPont operating sites (Chambers Works, Parlin, Pompton Lakes and Repauno) in the State, including claims under ISRA, alleged statewide PFAS contamination, including from the use of AFFF, claims of fraudulent conveyance, and claims for known natural resource damages from these Historical DuPont sites that the State of New Jersey and its departments have, or may have, in the future against the companies.

The NJ Statewide Settlement, after the expiration of the public notice and comment period, is subject to court approval. The court hearing for this approval occurred in January 2026 with a conclusion on the approval expected during the first half of 2026. The NJ Statewide Settlement includes aggregate cash payments to the State of New Jersey of $875 million, payable over a period of 25 years (net present value of approximately $500 million, using an 8 percent discount rate), responsibility for which will be allocated among the settling companies in accordance with the terms of the MOU. Of the $875 million, approximately $16 million is allocated to statewide natural resource damages unrelated to the four Historical DuPont sites, 25 percent of which relates to alleged statewide AFFF contamination. Accordingly, in the second quarter of 2025, the company recorded a pre-tax loss of $72 million ($58 million after-tax) within discontinued operations, reflecting the net present value of the company's share of the aggregate cash payment in accordance with the MOU. The settling companies have agreed to count the NJ Statewide Settlement against the MOU limit at net present value as of the date of the NJ Statewide Settlement. Entry into the NJ Statewide Settlement suspended the companies' 2025 MOU escrow funding obligations and funding of the initial payment under the NJ Statewide Settlement, expected in 2026, will be deemed to satisfy these obligations for 2025.

In addition to the cash payment, the NJ Statewide Settlement obligates certain settling companies to continue to undertake remediation at the four Historical DuPont sites, which will be determined in accordance with applicable law and the respective cost sharing arrangements between the settling companies, to the extent applicable. DuPont and Chemours will be responsible for the remediation at the sites under their current respective ownership. As part of the NJ Statewide Settlement, the companies have agreed to a binding third party review process of the remedial funding source ("RFS") for each of the four Historical DuPont sites (in the form of a surety bond or similar financial instrument) to ensure available funds for future remediation of these sites. This review process could identify additional required remediation, and an increase to the RFS for each of these sites.

The company and DuPont will also establish a reserve fund (in the form of a surety bond or similar financial instrument) in the amount of $475 million (the "Reserve Fund") with DuPont funding 71 percent and the company bearing the remaining 29 percent. The Reserve Fund is further financial security, separate from, and secondary to, the RFS, and the Reserve Fund will be accessible only in the event the RFS for a site has been exhausted and the party responsible for a site is not otherwise performing the required remediation. If a responsible party under the NJ Statewide Settlement defaults on their remediation or payment obligations (subject first to the cost sharing arrangements under the Corteva Separation Agreements, which provides that these obligations are "stray liabilities"), EIDP will become responsible for such obligations.

Under the NJ Statewide Settlement, no settling party admits any liability or wrongdoing or agrees to waive any defenses as to any such liability or wrongdoing.

Pursuant to a separate agreement among the company, DuPont, and Chemours, DuPont and the company will purchase Chemours' future interest, if any, in certain insurance proceeds. DuPont and the company will make the purchase by contributing a total of $150 million, with $106 million from DuPont and $44 million from the company, into an escrow fund, with funds to be released to pay Chemours' share of the NJ Statewide Settlement. DuPont and the company will pay Chemours, as additional contingent consideration, amounts received from the acquired insurance proceeds in excess of $150 million plus an accrued fee. The accrued fee will equal the lesser of (a) $35 million, and (b) $3 million plus interest (at prime minus 2 percent) on an initial balance of $150 million, as reduced by any amounts received by DuPont and Corteva from the acquired insurance proceeds, until DuPont and the company have so received $150 million, plus the accrued fee. The purchase price to be paid to Chemours, and the insurance proceeds recovered, by DuPont and the company from the insurance proceeds acquired from Chemours, are subject to the sharing percentages under the Letter Agreement.

Ohio. EIDP is a defendant in two lawsuits, including an action by the State of Ohio based on alleged damage to natural resources. The natural resources damage claim was preliminarily resolved in December 2023 for $110 million, with Corteva’s share of the settlement under the MOU being approximately $16 million of which $13 million has been paid. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual has been established. The second, a putative nationwide class action ("the Hardwick Class Action") brought on behalf of anyone who has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood serum seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel.” In December 2023, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Hardwick Class Action due to lack of standing by Mr. Hardwick. With further opportunities for appeals expired, the plaintiffs filed a new case, narrowing their original claims, in June 2024. In January 2025, EIDP filed a motion to dismiss the new case on the grounds it remains similar to the original claim.

New York. EIDP is a defendant in a putative class action (the "Baker Class Action"), brought by persons who live in and around Hoosick Falls, New York. These lawsuits assert claims for medical monitoring, property damage and personal injury based on alleged PFOA releases from manufacturing facilities owned and operated by co-defendants in Hoosick Falls. The lawsuits allege that EIDP and others supplied materials used at these facilities resulting in PFOA air and water contamination. A court approved settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the other co-defendants regarding the Baker Class Action case. In September 2022, the class certification of the Baker Class Action was granted, with the court certifying three separate classes consisting of a private well property damage class, a medical monitoring class and a nuisance class. A settlement in principle of the Baker Class Action was reached in June 2025 for $22 million, plus funding $1 million annually to a medical monitoring fund for five years. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual for Corteva’s share of the expected settlement under the MOU was established.

EIDP is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Town of East Hampton, New York alleging PFOA and PFOS contamination of the town’s well water. This district submitted a timely opt-out request from the Nationwide Water District Settlement. EIDP and Chemours are also defendants in two lawsuits by a private water utility provider in New Jersey and New York alleging damages from PFAS releases into the environment, that impacted water sources that the utilities use to provide water, as well as product liability, negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims. The court dismissed the New York plaintiff's trespass claims and limited plaintiffs’ nuisance claims to abatement damages

Other Natural Resource Damage Cases. In addition to the natural resource damage cases in New Jersey and New York, natural resource damage lawsuits against EIDP, Chemours, and others, claiming, among other things, PFC (including PFOA) contamination of groundwater and drinking water, have been filed by attorneys general in 31 states, the District of Columbia and three U.S. territories. Certain cases also name DuPont and Corteva as defendants and include claims of fraudulent conveyance. The complaints seek reimbursement for past and future costs to monitor and remediate the alleged contamination and compensation for the loss of value and use of the state’s natural resources, as well as punitive damages. Due to overlapping AFFF allegations, virtually all of these cases have been transferred, or are pending transfer to the SC MDL. These cases are largely in the discovery phase.

On July 13, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, EIDP and Corteva entered into a settlement agreement with the State of Delaware reflecting the companies' and the State's agreement to settle and fully resolve claims alleged against the companies regarding their historical Delaware operations, manufacturing, use and disposal of all chemical compounds, including PFAS. Under the settlement, if the companies, individually or jointly, within 8 years of the settlement, enter into a proportionally similar agreement to settle or resolve claims of another state for PFAS-related natural resource damages, for an amount greater than $50 million, the companies shall make a supplemental payment directly to the Natural Resources and Sustainability Trust (the “NRS Trust”) in an amount equal to such other states’ recovery in excess of $50 million ("Supplemental Payment"). Supplemental Payment(s), if any, will not exceed $25 million in the aggregate. All amounts paid by the companies under the

settlement are subject to the MOU and the Corteva Separation Agreement. Due to the settlement of natural resource damages claims with the State of Ohio, the one-time Supplemental Payment will be triggered when the further opportunity for appeals expires under the Ohio judicial consent order process. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual has been established for Corteva's share under the MOU. Under the settlement, if the state sues other parties and those parties seek contribution from the companies, the companies will have protection from contribution up to the amounts previously paid under the settlement agreement. The companies will also receive a credit up to the amount of the payment if the state seeks natural resource damage claims against the companies outside the scope of the settlement’s release of claims.

Canada. The Province of British Columbia, filed a class action against various defendants, including 3M, DuPont Canada, EIDP, and Chemours alleging harms caused by PFAS/AFFF. The class consists of all municipalities, regional districts, and other governance authorities and other persons in Canada that were responsible for a “Drinking Water System” from 1970 to the present. The plaintiff seeks to recover costs for the treatment and restoration of natural resources, as well as property, economic, and punitive damages. A putative class action was also filed in July 2024 on behalf of citizens of Quebec, Canada seeking class certification to recover for alleged PFAS and AFFF contamination of private wells and public water treatment facilities. In January 2024, a class action was also filed in Canada against 3M and other defendants, including EIDP and Chemours, alleging PFOS and PFOA environmental contamination and personal injury from use of AFFF. Additionally, several lawsuits on behalf of consumers of PFAS-infused products in the Province of British Columbia for personal injury and PFAS contamination in Manitoba, Canada have been filed.

Netherlands. In April 2021, four municipalities in the Netherlands filed complaints alleging contamination of land and groundwater resulting from the emission of PFOA and GenX by Corteva, DuPont and Chemours. The municipalities seek to recover costs incurred due to the alleged emissions, including damages for investigation costs, construction project delays, depreciation of land, soil remediation, liabilities to contractors, and attorneys’ fees. In September 2023, the court entered a second interlocutory judgment, ruling, inter alia, that defendants were liable to the municipalities for PFOA emissions during a certain time period, and the removal costs of deposited emissions on the municipalities' land infringes their property rights by an objective standard. In June 2024, Chemours and these Dutch municipalities signed a letter of intent that included the implementation of a specific remediation plan for the restoration of restricted vegetable gardens in certain areas of those municipalities to be funded by Chemours, sampling and developing a program to address a recreational lake, and further settlement discussions, including a potential fund to cover certain other expenditures aimed at environmental-related activities. While the letter of intent contemplates the possibility of settlement, discussions between the parties related to the resolution to these matters remain ongoing. Although the company believes a loss is probable, it is not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, the status of discussions between the parties. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual has been established for the estimated environmental remediation set forth in the letter of intent. Additionally, the Office of Public Prosecutor in the Netherlands opened a criminal investigation against certain Dutch subsidiaries of Chemours and Historical DuPont, as well as each subsidiary's directors, alleging unlawful PFOA and GenX emissions from Chemours' Dordrecht Works facility.

Carpet Mill Cases. The city of Centre, Alabama water district alleged defendants, including EIDP, Chemours, other chemical suppliers and large carpet mills, discharged PFAS in their industrial wastewater, and that this wastewater after treatment, resulted in PFAS contamination of drinking water supplies. The trial for the Centre, Alabama water district carpet mill case is set to begin January 2026. In July 2024, the town of Lyerly, Georgia filed a case making similar allegations as those brought in the Centre, Alabama case. Numerous carpet, textile and paper manufacturers, their alleged suppliers and former suppliers, including EIDP and Chemours, and certain municipal or utility defendants are also subject to several lawsuits in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, alleging negligence, nuisance and trespass related to the release of PFOA, and requesting injunctive relief related to PFOA contamination.

Fayetteville Works Facility, North Carolina

Prior to the separation of Chemours, EIDP introduced GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA at the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North Carolina. This Historical DuPont facility is now owned and operated by Chemours, which continues to manufacture and use GenX. The current natural resources damage claims in North Carolina allege that direct discharges from this legacy facility are a source of PFOA contamination.

At December 31, 2025, several actions, including personal injury, are pending in the North Carolina federal court against Chemours and EIDP relating to PFC discharges from the Fayetteville Works facility. One of these is a consolidated putative class action that asserts claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. Another action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (“CFPUA”) and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. EIDP and Chemours filed a motion for summary judgment on this consolidated action in March 2025. Cumberland County, North Carolina, which is not part of the

forgoing consolidation action or the Nationwide Water District Settlement, filed an action for alleged PFOA contamination to its groundwater sources used in drinking water and seeking recovery for costs associated with water filtration, monitoring, and compliance costs. The pending mediation and trial for this matter are no longer scheduled.

In March 2023, CFPUA filed a Delaware Chancery Court action claiming the spin-off of Chemours and the Dow and Historical DuPont merger were unlawful and should be voided, so CFPUA is not precluded from recovering amounts it is entitled in its pending litigation. EIDP filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware Chancery Court action based upon failure to state a claim under Delaware law in June 2023, along with a counterclaim in October 2023. CFPUA’s motion to stay the case was granted in January 2024.

In a state court action approximately 2,400 private property owners near the Fayetteville Works facility seek compensatory and punitive damages for their claims of private nuisance, trespass, negligence, water monitoring and property damage allegedly caused by release of certain PFCs. In addition, several personal injury cases have been filed in the North Carolina federal court alleging thyroid disease, and prostate, breast and kidney cancers as a result of PFAS exposure.

Generally, site-related expenses related to GenX claims are subject to the cost sharing arrangements as defined in the MOU.

Environmental

Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. These obligations are included in accrued and other current liabilities and other noncurrent obligations in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. It is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration.

For a discussion of the allocation of environmental liabilities under the Chemours Separation Agreement and the Corteva Separation Agreement, see page F-36-37.

The accrued environmental obligations and indemnification assets include the following:


	As of December 31, 2025
(In millions)	Indemnification asset		Accrual balance 3		Potential exposure above amount accrued 3
Environmental Remediation Stray Liabilities
Chemours related obligations - subject to indemnity 1,2	$	254	$	264	$	204
Other discontinued or divested businesses obligations 1	33		71		201

Environmental remediation liabilities primarily related to DuPont - subject to indemnity from DuPont 2	50		55		55

Environmental remediation liabilities not subject to indemnity	—		112		86

Indemnification liabilities related to the MOU 4	—		60		7
Total	$	337	$	562	$	553

1.Represents liabilities that are subject to the $200 million threshold and sharing arrangements as discussed on page F-37, under the header "Corteva Separation Agreement."

2.The company has recorded an indemnification asset related to these accruals, including $22 million related to the Superfund sites.

3.Accrual balance represents management’s best estimate of the costs of remediation and restoration, although it is reasonably possible that the potential exposure, as indicated, could range above the amounts accrued, as there are inherent uncertainties in these estimates. Accrual balance includes $49 million for remediation of Superfund sites. Amounts do not include possible impacts from the remediation elements of the EPAs October 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap (as applicable), except as disclosed on page F-43 relating to Chemours' remediation activities at the Fayetteville Works Facility pursuant to the Consent Order with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("NC DEQ").

4.Represents liabilities that are subject to the $150 million threshold and sharing agreements as discussed on page F-36, under the header "Chemours Separation Agreement (Performance Chemicals).

Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, AltEn Facility

The EPA and the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (“NDEE”) are pursuing investigations, response and removal actions, litigation and enforcement action related to an ethanol plant located near Mead, Nebraska that is owned and

operated by AltEn LLC (“AltEn”). The agencies have alleged violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and other federal and state laws stemming from AltEn’s lack of compliance with the terms and conditions of its operating permits and other regulatory requirements. Corteva is one of six seed companies, who were customers of AltEn (collectively, the "Facility Response Group"), participating in the NDEE’s Voluntary Cleanup Program to address certain interim remediation needs at the site. In March 2025, the Facility Response Group reached an agreement to settle its lawsuit against AltEn and certain of its affiliates to preserve certain contractual and common law indemnification claims. The settlement agreement, among other things, limits AltEn’s ability to dispose of the property or take any adverse action with respect to its property or assets. As of December 31, 2025, an accrual was established for Corteva’s estimated voluntary contribution to the solid waste and wastewater remedial action plans for the AltEn location.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Pittsburg Plant

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) has filed a state court lawsuit over challenging whether the Pittsburg plant’s high purity water system (“HPWS”), as operated by Dow and now Corteva, required a permit pursuant to the RCRA. Discussions between the parties remain ongoing and further litigation, including discovery, is stayed.

Corteva, Inc. 10-K