Item 1A. RISK FACTORS, continued

Corteva has designed and implemented internal controls to restrict use of, access to and distribution of its intellectual property. Despite these precautions, Corteva’s intellectual property is vulnerable to infringement, misappropriation and other unauthorized access, including through employee or licensee error or actions, theft and cybersecurity incidents, and other security breaches. When unauthorized access and use or counterfeit products are discovered, Corteva may report such situations to governmental authorities for investigation, as appropriate, and takes measures to mitigate any potential impact. Protecting intellectual property related to biotechnology is particularly challenging because theft is difficult to detect and biotechnology can be self-replicating.

In addition, because of the rapid pace of technological change, the confidentiality of patent applications in some jurisdictions and/or the uncertainty in predicting the outcome of complex proceedings relating to ownership and the scope of patents relating to certain emerging technologies, competitors may be issued patents related to Corteva’s business unexpectedly. These patents could reduce the value of Corteva’s commercial or pipeline products or, to the extent they cover key technologies on which Corteva has relied, require Corteva to seek to obtain licenses (and Corteva cannot ensure it would be able to obtain such a license on acceptable terms) or cease using the technology, no matter how valuable to Corteva’s business.

Legislation and jurisprudence on patent protection is evolving and changes in laws could affect Corteva’s ability to obtain or maintain patent protection for, and otherwise enforce Corteva’s patents related to, its products.

Corteva’s business may be adversely affected by the availability of counterfeit products.

A counterfeit product is one that has been deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled as to its identity and source. A counterfeit Corteva product, therefore, is one manufactured by someone other than Corteva, but which appears to be the same as an authentic Corteva product. The prevalence of counterfeit products is a significant and growing industry-wide issue due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the following: the widespread use of the Internet, which has greatly facilitated the ease by which counterfeit products can be advertised, purchased and delivered to individual consumers; the availability of sophisticated technology that makes it easier for counterfeiters to make counterfeit products; and the relatively modest risk of penalties faced by counterfeiters compared to the large profits that can be earned by them from the sale of counterfeit products. Further, laws against counterfeiting vary greatly from country to country, and the enforcement of existing laws varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, in some countries, counterfeiting is not a crime; in others, it may result in only minimal sanctions. In addition, those involved in the distribution of counterfeit products use complex transport routes to evade customs controls by disguising the true source of their products.

Corteva’s global reputation makes its products prime targets for counterfeiting organizations. Counterfeit products pose a risk to consumer health and safety because of the conditions under which they are manufactured (often in unregulated, unlicensed, uninspected and unsanitary sites) as well as the lack of regulation of their contents. Failure to mitigate the threat of counterfeit products, which is exacerbated by the complexity of the supply chain, could adversely impact Corteva’s business by, among other things, causing the loss of consumer confidence in Corteva’s name and in the integrity of its products, potentially resulting in lost sales and an increased threat of litigation.

Corteva undertakes significant efforts to counteract the threats associated with counterfeit products, including, among other things, working with regulatory authorities and multinational coalitions to combat the counterfeiting of products and supporting efforts by law enforcement authorities to prosecute counterfeiters; assessing new and existing technologies to seek to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to copy Corteva’s products and easier for consumers to distinguish authentic from counterfeit products; working diligently to raise public awareness about the dangers of counterfeit products; working collaboratively with wholesalers, customs offices and law enforcement agencies to increase inspection coverage, monitor distribution channels and improve surveillance of distributors; and working with other members of an international trade association of agrochemical companies to promote initiatives to combat counterfeiting activity. No assurance can be given, however, that Corteva’s efforts and the efforts of others will be entirely successful, and the presence of counterfeit products may continue to increase.

Restrictions under the intellectual property cross-license agreements limit Corteva’s ability to develop and commercialize certain products and services and/or prosecute, maintain and enforce certain intellectual property.

The company is dependent to a certain extent on DuPont and Dow to maintain and enforce certain of the intellectual property licensed under the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreements. For example, DuPont and Dow are responsible for filing, prosecuting and maintaining (at their respective discretion) patents on trade secrets and know-how that they each respectively license to Corteva. They also have the first right to enforce their respective trade secrets and know-how licensed to Corteva. If

Part I

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS, continued

DuPont or Dow, as applicable, fails to fulfill its obligations or chooses to not enforce the licensed patents, trade secrets or know-how under the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreements, the company may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competitive products and services.

In addition, Corteva’s use of the intellectual property licensed to it under the Intellectual Property Cross-License Agreements is restricted to certain fields, which could limit Corteva’s ability to develop and commercialize certain products and services. For example, the licenses granted to Corteva under the agreement will not extend to all fields of use that the company may decide to enter into in the future. These restrictions may make it more difficult, time consuming and/or expensive for Corteva to develop and commercialize certain new products and services, or may result in certain of its products or services being later to market than those of its competitors.

Risks Related to the Corteva Separation

In connection with the Corteva Separation the company has assumed, and agreed to indemnify DuPont and Dow for, certain liabilities. If the company is required to make payments pursuant to these indemnities, the company may need to divert cash to meet those obligations and its financial results could be negatively impacted. In addition, DuPont and Dow have agreed to indemnify Corteva for certain liabilities. These indemnities may not be sufficient to insure the company against the full amount of liabilities it incurs, and DuPont and/or Dow, and/or their historical separated businesses, may not be able to satisfy their indemnification obligations in the future.

Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, the Employee Matters Agreement and the Tax Matters Agreement with DuPont and Dow, the company agreed to assume, and indemnify DuPont and Dow for, certain liabilities for uncapped amounts, which may include, among other items, associated defense costs, settlement amounts and judgments, as discussed further in Note 15 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and Part I - Item 3 - Legal Proceedings. Payments pursuant to these indemnities may be significant and could negatively impact the company’s business, particularly indemnities relating to certain litigation for Historical DuPont operations or its actions that could impact the tax-free nature of the Corteva Distribution. Third parties could also seek to hold the company responsible for any of the liabilities allocated to DuPont and Dow, including those related to DowDuPont’s specialty products and/or materials science businesses, respectively, and those related to discontinued and/or divested businesses and operations of Historical Dow, which have been allocated to Dow. DuPont and/or Dow, as applicable, have agreed to indemnify Corteva for such liabilities, but such indemnities may not be sufficient to protect the company against the full amount of such liabilities. In addition, DuPont and/or Dow, as applicable, may not fully satisfy their indemnification obligations with respect to the liabilities the company incurs. Even if the company ultimately succeeds in recovering from DuPont and/or Dow, as applicable, any amounts for which the company is held liable, the company may be temporarily required to bear these losses itself.

Additionally, the company generally has assumed and is responsible for the payment of its share of (i) certain liabilities of DowDuPont relating to, arising out of or resulting from certain general corporate matters of DowDuPont, (ii) certain liabilities of Historical DuPont relating to, arising out of or resulting from general corporate matters of Historical DuPont and discontinued and/or divested businesses and operations of Historical DuPont, including its Performance Chemicals spin-off, Chemours, and (iii) certain separation expenses not otherwise allocated to DuPont or Dow (or allocated specifically to Corteva) pursuant to the Corteva Separation Agreement, and third parties could seek to hold Corteva responsible for DuPont’s or Dow’s share of any such liabilities. For more information, see Note 15 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and Part I - Item 3 - Legal Proceedings. DuPont and/or Dow, as applicable, will indemnify Corteva for their share of any such liabilities; however, such indemnities may not be sufficient to protect Corteva against the full amount of such liabilities, and/or DuPont and/or Dow may not fully satisfy their respective indemnification obligations. In addition, even if the company ultimately succeeds in recovering from DuPont and/or Dow any amounts for which the company is held liable in excess of its agreed share, the company may be temporarily required to bear these losses itself and may not be able to fully insure itself to cover these risks.

Risks related to the satisfaction of these indemnification obligations and temporarily bearing losses may be increased if DuPont's electronics business spin-off, Qnity Electronics, Inc., or if other divested businesses of Historical DuPont (including Chemours) or Historical Dow do not or are unable to cover their liabilities or satisfy their indemnification obligations. Even if Corteva takes legal action to protect its rights with respect to such a transaction, these legal costs may be significant. Each of the above risks could materially affect the company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Part I

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS, continued

The Corteva Separation and related transactions may expose Corteva to potential liabilities arising out of state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws

Although the company received a solvency opinion from an investment bank confirming that the company and DuPont were each adequately capitalized following the Corteva Distribution, the Separation could be challenged under various state and federal fraudulent conveyance laws. In connection with fraudulent conveyances or transfers are generally defined to include transfers made or obligations incurred with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud current or future creditors or transfers made or obligations incurred for less than reasonably equivalent value when the debtor was insolvent, or that rendered the debtor insolvent, inadequately capitalized or unable to pay its debts as they become due. Any unpaid creditor could claim that DuPont did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value in the Separation and Corteva Distribution, and that the Separation and Corteva Distribution left DuPont insolvent or with unreasonably small capital or that DuPont intended or believed it would incur debts beyond its ability to pay such debts as they matured. Additionally, under its indemnity provisions of the Separation Agreement, the company could find its liabilities increased as a result of a court concluding that Historical DuPont, Historical Dow or DowDuPont executed a fraudulent conveyance in connection with divestitures and spin-offs of any one of their historical operations, including Chemours. If a court were to agree with such a plaintiff, then such court could void the Separation and Distribution as a fraudulent transfer or impose substantial liabilities on Corteva, which could materially adversely affect its financial condition and results of operations. Among other things, the court could return some of Corteva’s assets or shares of Corteva common stock to DuPont, provide DuPont with a claim for money damages against Corteva in an amount equal to the difference between the consideration received by DuPont and the fair market value of Corteva at the time of the Corteva Distribution, or require Corteva to fund liabilities of other companies involved in the Internal Reorganization for the benefit of creditors.

The Distribution is also subject to review under state corporate Distribution statutes. Under the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”), a corporation may only pay dividends to its stockholders either (i) out of its surplus (net assets minus capital) or (ii) if there is no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. Although the Distribution was made out of DowDuPont’s surplus and the company received an opinion that DowDuPont has adequate surplus under Delaware law to declare the dividend of Corteva common stock in connection with the Corteva Distribution, there can be no assurance that a court will not later determine that some or all of the Corteva Distribution was unlawful.

The company is subject to continuing contingent tax-related liabilities of DowDuPont following the Distribution.

There are several significant areas where the liabilities of DowDuPont may become Corteva’s obligations either in whole or in part. For example, under the Code and the related rules and regulations, each corporation that was a member of DowDuPont’s consolidated tax reporting group during any taxable period or portion of any taxable period ending on or before the effective time of the Distribution is jointly and severally liable for the U.S. federal income tax liability of the entire consolidated tax reporting group for such taxable period. Additionally, to the extent that any subsidiary of Corteva was included in the consolidated tax reporting group of either Historical DuPont or Historical Dow for any taxable period or portion of any taxable period ending on or before the effective date of the Merger, such subsidiary is jointly and severally liable for the U.S. federal income tax liability of the entire consolidated tax reporting group of Historical DuPont or Historical Dow, as applicable, for such taxable period. On April 1, 2019, the company entered into the Tax Matters Agreement with DuPont and Dow that allocates the responsibility for prior period consolidated taxes among Corteva, DuPont and Dow. If DuPont or Dow were unable or unwilling to pay any prior period taxes for which it is responsible, however, the company could be required to pay the entire amount of such taxes, and such amounts could be significant. Other provisions of federal, state, local, or foreign law may establish similar liability for other matters, including laws governing tax-qualified pension plans, as well as other contingent liabilities.

Risks related to our Proposed Separation

Corteva is subject to risks related to its plans to separate its seed and crop protection businesses in a spin-off that will result in two standalone public companies, including that the proposed separation may not be completed on the contemplated timeline or at all and may not achieve the intended benefits.

On October 1, 2025, Corteva announced its intent to separate its Seed and Crop Protection businesses into two standalone, publicly traded companies, in a transaction that is intended to qualify as a tax-free spin-off for U.S. federal income tax purposes (the “Proposed Separation”). The Proposed Separation is subject to the satisfaction of a number of customary conditions,

Part I

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS, continued

including, among others, the filing and effectiveness of a Form 10 registration statement with the SEC, receipt of a tax opinion from external counsel to the effect that, among other things, the transaction will qualify as a tax-free spin-off, and final approval by Corteva’s Board of Directors. The ultimate timing of the Proposed Separation will depend on the readiness of each business to operate as an independent public company and the finalization of appropriate capital structures for each. The failure to satisfy all of the required conditions for the Proposed Separation, as well as unanticipated developments, could delay, prevent or otherwise adversely affect the Proposed Separation. These potential developments, many of which are outside of Corteva’s control, include, but are not limited to, disruptions in general or financial market conditions, material adverse changes in business or industry conditions, unanticipated costs, difficulties or delays in obtaining various regulatory and tax approvals or clearances, and stakeholder actions or challenges relating to the Proposed Separation or to other aspects of Corteva’s business or strategy.

Executing the Proposed Separation will require significant time and attention from Corteva’s senior management and employees, which could disrupt Corteva’s ongoing business, negatively impact Corteva’s relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, distributors, licensors and other stakeholders and adversely affect Corteva’s financial results and results of operations. There can be no assurances that Corteva will be able to complete the Proposed Separation on the terms or on the timeline that was announced, if at all, or that the complexities, costs and dis-synergies associated with the Proposed Separation will not be significant or exceed expectations. Moreover, although Corteva expects to maintain an investment grade credit rating, a downgrade in Corteva’s rating may lead to increased borrowing costs for Corteva. In addition, there may be increased borrowing costs associated with the re-allocation or taking on of new debt in connection with the Proposed Separation.

If the Proposed Separation is completed, Corteva may not be able to achieve the full strategic and financial benefits that are expected to result from the Proposed Separation. Following the Proposed Separation, the Seed and Crop Protection businesses will bear the full costs and responsibilities of operating a standalone public company and these dis-synergies may exceed expectations. Moreover, the Seed and Crop Protection businesses will each be smaller, less diversified enterprises, and as a result, the separated companies may be more exposed to industry-specific risks and changing market conditions than Corteva is today. The Proposed Separation also may prompt existing stockholders to divest holdings that no longer align with their investment objectives, potentially affecting the trading value of each company’s common stock following the Proposed Separation. Further, there can be no assurance that the combined value of the common stock of the two companies will be equal to or greater than the value of Corteva’s common stock had the Proposed Separation not occurred.

In addition, while it is expected that Corteva will receive a tax opinion from external counsel to the effect that, among other things, the Proposed Separation will qualify as a tax-free spin-off for U.S. federal income tax purposes, any such opinion is not binding on the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Accordingly, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service may reach conclusions with respect to the Proposed Separation that are different from the conclusion reached in such opinion. If the Proposed Separation is ultimately determined to be taxable, either Corteva or Corteva’s stockholders could incur significant income tax liabilities.