DUPONT RETIREMENT BENEFITS CLASS ACTION
Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva, Inc. DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, et al.
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case No. 21-cv-03966-MMB
If you received a class notice regarding this litigation in May/June 2024, you do not need to do anything further at this time. A copy of the Class Notice can be found here.
If you are unsure of whether you are a member of either the Early Retirement Class or the Optional Retirement Class, you can complete the inquiry form found the Kantor & Kantor website, and we will be happy to provide you with additional information. The form can be found here.
Update as of May 22, 2025
The damages phase of this litigation continued on May 2, 2025, with the Court hearing testimony from the Court’s technical advisor, Susan Katz Hoffman and defendants’ expert. Ms. Hoffman’s report was docketed on April 17, 2025. You can read the Hoffman Report here.
Plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment and order, and brief in support of this to the Court on May 8, 2025, and defendants responded on May 16, 2025. You can read Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment and order here, and Plaintiffs’ brief in support here.
On May 19, 2025, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiffs to address certain issues in their Reply memorandum. Plaintiffs filed their Reply on May 22, 2025, and you can read Plaintiffs’ reply here. The Court also directed defendants to file a motion with the Court within seven (7) days of May 19, 2025, indicating if they intend to “seek a stay of the remedies taking effect pending appeal.” Defendants immediately filed a motion seeking expedited scheduling relief on May 20, 2025. As of May 22, 2025, the Court had not yet ruled on defendants’ motion for expedited scheduling relief.
At the May 2, 2025 hearing, Judge Baylson indicated that he intended to issue a final judgment in this litigation before the end of May.
2025 Motions to Dismiss and Decertify
On March 19, 2025, as this litigation entered the final phase related to remedies for Plaintiffs, the defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Decertify the Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) class action as to Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and the Optional Retirement Class as to Counts II (Denial of Benefits) and IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).
On April 21, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motions in their entirety, stating that “Defendants’ Motions improperly attempt to relitigate liability which has already been decided in favor” of Plaintiffs. The Court’s decision can be found here.
In dismissing defendants’ motions, the Court found that
The injury to the Early and Optional Retirement Class Members is one of the very specific injuries that ERISA was enacted to prevent—the inability to know where exactly one stands with respect to his pension benefits and Plan resulting from the miscommunication or omission of material information
The Court further concluded that
Optional Retirement Class Members are entitled to retroactive recovery under Count II should they elect such recovery.
Plaintiffs will file a detail proposed final order and judgment on May 8, 2025, with defendants’ responses due on May 15, 2025.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
Judgment for Plaintiffs on Counts II, IV, and VI
After a six day bench trial held during June and September, 2024, on December 18, 2024, the Honorable Michael M. Baylson found in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count II (Claim for Benefits and to Clarify Benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) by the Optional Retirement Class), Count IV (Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, 29 U.S.C. § 1104, and Breach of Co-Fiduciary Duty, 29 U.S.C. § 1105 by both the Optional Retirement Class and the Early Retirement Class), and Count VI (Claim for Impermissible Cutback of Accrued Pension Benefits, 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g) by the Optional Retirement Class) of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint in this litigation.
The Early Retirement Class is comprised of those who were under age 50 with at least 15 years of service with E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“Historical DuPont”) as of May 31, 2019 and transferred to the newly created DuPont (“New DuPont”) at the time of the spin-off on June 1, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off by New DuPont until they reached the age of 50.
The Optional Retirement Class is comprised of those over 50 with at least 15 years of service with Historical DuPont as of May 31, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off, by New DuPont. The Optional Retirement Class does not include anyone whose Early Retirement Benefits at spin-off would be equal to, or greater than their Optional Retirement Benefit.
Ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count II, the Court found that
[T]he Plan language unambiguously requires Optional Retirement Benefits and that the Administrative Committee’s interpretation of Optional Retirement controverts the Plan’s plain language.
The Court also found in Plaintiffs’ favor on Count VI, the anti-cutback claim. Relying on Third Circuit case law, the court concluded that
The Administrative Committee’s interpretation of the spin-off vis-à-vis the Optional Retirement Benefit—which was arbitrary and capricious—had the effect of amending the Plan and cutting back Optional Retirement Class Members’ benefits.
Finally, in finding for Plaintiffs on Count IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), the Court concluded that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to both the Optional Retirement Class and the Early Retirement Class:
[D]efendants never even informed Plan participants in any communications before the spin-off that Optional Retirement Benefits would no longer be available due to the spin-off. The complete omission of any explanation of how the spin-off affected the Optional Retirement Benefit . . . constituted a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the Optional Retirement Class.
[D]efendants’ communications and the SPD [Summary Plan Description] would not inform an Early Retirement Class Member of the fact that they were terminated. In sum, while the Plan interpretation was not unreasonable, Defendants nonetheless breached their duties to communicate that Plan interpretation clearly to the Early Retirement Class, thus breaching their fiduciary duties.
You can read the Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Liability here.
The initial bench trial was limited to issues of liability. The Court has appointed Richard L. Bazelon, Esq. as Special Master in this case to oversee the damages phase of the trial. The Order appointing Special Master Bazelon can be found here.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
Class Certification
On November 17, 2023, the Honorable Michael M. Baylson granted class certification in this litigation. Judge Baylson certified two classes of workers.
The Early Retirement Class is comprised of those who were under age 50 with at least 15 years of service with E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“Historical DuPont”) as of May 2019 and transferred to the newly created DuPont (“New DuPont”) at the time of the spin-off on June 1, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off by New DuPont until they reached the age of 50.
The Optional Retirement Class is comprised of those over 50 with at least 15 years of service with Historical DuPont as of May 31, 2019, and who continued to be employed, post spin-off, by New DuPont. The Optional Retirement Class does not include anyone whose Early Retirement Benefits at spin-off would be equal to, or greater than their Optional Retirement Benefit.
You can read the Memorandum regarding Class Certification here, and the Order here.
Class notices were sent out in May, 2024. If you believe you are a member of the Early Retirement Class or the Optional Retirement Class and did not receive a notice, please contact us via email at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com. A copy of the Class Notice can be found here.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
Plaintiffs’ Allegations
Plaintiffs are current and former employees of DuPont Specialty Products who allege they were denied early retirement benefits and or optional retirement benefits after the 2019 DowDuPont spin-off that created three separate public companies: Corteva, Inc.; Dow, Inc.; and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that the spin-off was a strategy to deprive long-term employees of the benefits they earned through decades of service to their employer, in violation of ERISA’s protective purposes. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint can be found here.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel
Edward Stone, Esq. and Lisa A. Salmons, Esq. of Edward Stone Law P.C., are working with Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq., Susan L. Meter, Esq., Jaclyn Conover, Esq. and Samantha Brener of Kantor & Kantor, LLP and Daniel M. Feinberg, Esq., Todd Jackson, Esq., and Nina Wasow, Esq. of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, LLP on this class action lawsuit.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
Case Overview
Plaintiffs are participants in the Corteva Pension and Retirement Plan, formerly the U.S. DuPont Pension and Retirement Plan (the “Plan”). Plaintiffs brought this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated participants, their beneficiaries, and estates, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq. (“ERISA”) seeking, for themselves and on behalf of one or more classes of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, declaratory, permanent injunctive and other appropriate equitable and remedial plan-wide relief.
The Plan was created in 1904 and is one of the oldest retirement Plans in the United States. On December 11, 2015, the 217-year-old E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company announced its intent to merge with Dow Chemical Company. The merger of Dow and DuPont closed on August 31, 2017, creating the combined entity DowDuPont. The merger was designed to combine the two entities and then spin-off into three separate public companies: Corteva, Inc., focusing on agricultural chemicals, a new Dow, Inc., focusing on materials science, and a new DuPont de Nemours, Inc., focusing on specialty product industries, the industry in which the Plaintiffs worked.
After the corporate spin-off and related transactions, Defendants improperly deprived Plaintiffs and the class members of certain early retirement benefits and optional retirement benefits expressly contemplated by the Plan and for which Plaintiffs and the class members counted on for many years, putting their own interests in front of the interests of class members in direct violation of ERISA and the terms of the Plan.
For more information about this case, please email us at eddie@edwardstonelaw.com, call us at (203) 504-8425, or contact us using our contact form.
