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 on the Kantor & Kantor website, and we will be happy to provide you with additional information. The form can be found here.

You can also email Lisa Salmons, Esq. at lisa@edwardstonelaw.com for more information.

Update as of November 8, 2025

The parties were not able to agree on the content of the Notice of Final Judgment. Both parties filed proposed notices with the Court on October 9, 2025. The Special Master filed his report and recommendation on October 14, 2025. Objections to this Report and Recommendation were filed by both parties on November 4, 2025.

While the notices are not yet finalized, the Notice of Final Judgment will contain information and instructions on how class members can make elections for the benefits they are entitled to under this lawsuit. When you receive this Notice, do not throw it away as it will contain important and time sensitive information.

As more details are available we will provide updates here, including copies of the Notices of Final Judgment.

Stay of Enforcement Denied by the District Court and the Third Circuit

On June 25, 2025, defendants filed a motion for stay of enforcement of the Court’s final judgment, pending appeal. Plaintiffs response to this motion was filed on July 2, 2025. Defendants filed a reply on July 3, 2025, stating their intention to seek a stay from the Third Circuit if Judge Baylson denies their June 25th motion for a stay.

On July 11, 2025, Judge Baylson issued a Memorandum Re: Motion to Stay, writing a thirteen page opinion outlining his reasoning for denying defendants’ requested stay, and holding that,

In short, Defendants have not demonstrated that enforcement of the judgment during appeal would likely result in irreparable harm. Their concerns are either speculative or amount to routine financial exposure that does not meet the Third Circuit’s threshold for this “extraordinary remedy.”

Judge Baylson did stay enforcement of the Final Judgment for a short period of time, allowing Defendants ten (10) days to seek a stay of enforcement from the Third Circuit.

As permitted by the federal rules, after defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the Final Judgment was denied by Judge Baylson, on July 15, 2025, defendants filed a second motion to stay enforcement of the Final Judgment, asking the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the district court’s denial of a stay. Defendants asked that their motion for a stay be heard on an expedited basis. On July 16th, the Third Circuit issued an order that Plaintiffs’ response be filed by July 17th at noon.

Late in the afternoon on July 17th, the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal.

Status of Appeal – Updated as of November 8, 2025

The Final Judgment issued on May 30, 2025 started the clock ticking on the appeals process. On June 25, 2025, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs. On July 10, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the Final Judgment. The two appeals were subsequently consolidated, and will be briefed together. Defendants (appellants) asked the Third Circuit for permission to exceed the Court’s word limitation in its briefing, which was granted. The Defendants brief was filed with the Third Circuit on November 4, 2025. A copy of Defendants’ brief is available here. Plaintiffs (appellees) brief is due on December 18, 2025.

Case History

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 Court’s Memorandum of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Liability here.

The Court issued its Final Judgment on May 30, 2025.

Class Definitions Clarified

On May 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ various motions seeking clarification on several issues related to class definitions and remedies for class members. In its Order, the Court clarified that:

• The Optional Retirement Class includes individuals whose Early Retirement benefits became equal to their Optional Retirement benefits during the pendency of the lawsuit.
• Individuals who signed purported waivers or releases when terminating their employment after the spin-off are included in the Optional Retirement Class.
• Individuals who had at least 15 years of service but were not yet age 50 prior to a break in service, and who were rehired after January 1, 2007*, are included in the Early and Optional Retirement Classes. *The Court’s original order incorrectly used the date of January 1, 2017. This was rectified in a later order.
• Early Retirement Class members who wish to commence early retirement because of the final judgment that will be issued in this lawsuit must cease employment with their current employer to commence this benefit.

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 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.

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.

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.