Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield joined a bipartisan coalition in court to stop what he calls a corporate “shell game” that would leave DuPont short of money for forever chemical cleanup. The states want a judge in Marion County, Indiana, to freeze key assets before more value slips away from creditors and taxpayers.
In an Oregon Department of Justice release, Rayfield said the companies moved a major piece of the business into a brand-new entity while PFAS lawsuits were still pending. The filing materials carry October 1, 2026 document paths and describe the action as filed “today.”
The legal stakes are simple and large. States say DuPont’s PFAS fouled water and soil across the country. Cleanup and public compensation are expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars nationwide. If the asset shift stands, officials warn, the company left holding the liability may have far less left to pay.
Rayfield and attorneys general from Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Washington filed together. The Government of Guam joined them.
They named DuPont, now legally known as EIDP, parent company Corteva, and Vylor. The suit argues DuPont and Corteva handed the Pioneer seeds business to Vylor. That handoff, the states claim, moved roughly three-quarters of the value that had been available to pay the states and other creditors.
Pioneer is described as a lucrative major corn and soybean operation. Vylor is described as a brand-new company that received it. The lawsuit asks the court to freeze the assets in place so DuPont is not left with few resources to cover contamination its chemicals caused.
The coalition asked a court in Marion County, Indiana, for a temporary restraining order. A TRO is a short-term court order that can lock assets in place while a case moves forward.
If granted, the order would block DuPont and Corteva from spending remaining money on shareholder dividends and stock buybacks. It would also stop Vylor from selling the seeds business or borrowing against it.
That procedural ask is the immediate pressure point. The states want the court to halt further transfers and payouts before the value available to satisfy cleanup claims shrinks further.
Rayfield framed the transfer as an attempt to dodge responsibility for pollution already in Oregon communities and far beyond. He tied the asset move directly to harm from PFAS, often called forever chemicals because they break down so slowly.
Attorney General Rayfield said:
"DuPont’s forever chemicals are in our groundwater, our drinking water, and our soil,"
He continued in the same statement:
"And now this corporation is using a shell game to avoid accountability for the massive harm they’ve caused. We’re not letting them leave our communities high and dry."
The states’ theory is blunt. They argue the deal was designed to make it harder to collect what DuPont owes and to avoid paying for the contamination it caused.
In May 2023, Oregon sued DuPont, Corteva, and other companies over PFAS from firefighting foam. That foam was used for training and emergencies at military bases, airports, industrial sites, and other locations around the state.
Many other states filed similar lawsuits. The new Indiana filing sits on top of that pending docket. The states say the Pioneer handoff happened while those cases were still open.
In the broader claims, the states allege DuPont knew or should have known PFAS would harm the environment and people’s health. They also allege the company knew or should have known removal from groundwater and drinking water would cost enormous sums.
PFAS contamination of water and soil is the core injury described in the release. CDC testing has found PFAS in the blood of nearly everyone tested since 1999.
Removing PFAS from drinking water, cleaning contaminated sites, and compensating the public is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars nationwide. That figure is why asset protection fights matter in these cases. When private liability thins out, public budgets often absorb the rest.
Rayfield’s office presents the TRO bid as a way to keep money available for those costs rather than letting it move into dividends, buybacks, or a new corporate shell beyond easy reach.
The complaint and TRO brief are described in the Oregon release, with linked filing paths for both. The body of the release does not quote long passages from those documents beyond the operative goals already summarized.
Investigators and courts will need to determine the precise terms and timing of the Pioneer transfer, the exact dollar value moved, and whether the structure unlawfully hinders creditors. Public materials in the release do not list a case number or docket for the Marion County action.
DuPont, Corteva, and Vylor responses are not included in the release. No public results are described yet on whether the TRO will be granted. The current status of Oregon’s May 2023 suit and parallel state cases is not detailed beyond the fact that they were pending when the seeds business moved.
The coalition spans red and blue states and a territorial government. That breadth undercuts any claim this is a one-party stunt. It also raises the practical question courts face in mass environmental liability: can a defendant reorganize value out of reach while cleanup claims remain unpaid?
Rayfield cast the answer in law-and-order terms for communities living with contaminated water and soil. The states want assets frozen first, arguments later, so a judgment or settlement is not an empty piece of paper.
For taxpayers, the difference is concrete. Either the companies that sold and used these chemicals keep enough value on the hook, or cleanup bills migrate onto public ledgers already strained by infrastructure and water treatment costs.
The immediate next step is the Indiana court’s ruling on the temporary restraining order. If the freeze issues, DuPont and Corteva would face limits on dividends and buybacks, and Vylor would face limits on sale or borrowing against the seeds business.
If the court denies or narrows relief, the states still have the underlying suit over the transfer and the older PFAS cases. Either path leaves open the core collection fight: who pays to scrub forever chemicals from groundwater, drinking water, and soil.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed in this release the full formation details of Vylor or a final accounting of every dollar shifted. Those facts will matter when a judge weighs irreparable harm and the balance of equities on the TRO.
When corporations treat cleanup liability like a cup-and-ball trick, states have a duty to stop the move and protect the public purse. Courts that keep assets in reach defend more than a docket. They defend the basic rule that pollution bills belong to the polluter, not the taxpayer.
