Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Corteva, Inc.

a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The company maintains a system of disclosure controls and procedures to give reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the company's reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These controls and procedures also give reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in such reports is accumulated and communicated to management to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

As of June 30, 2024, the company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), together with management, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act. Based on that evaluation, the CEO and CFO concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

b) Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There have been no changes in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended June 30, 2024 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting.

EIDP, Inc.

a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

EIDP maintains a system of disclosure controls and procedures to give reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in their reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission. These controls and procedures also give reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in such reports is accumulated and communicated to management to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

As of June 30, 2024, EIDP's CEO and CFO, together with management, conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of EIDP's disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act. Based on that evaluation, the CEO and CFO concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

b) Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There have been no changes in EIDP's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended June 30, 2024 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, EIDP's internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

**Item 1.**LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

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 Separation of Corteva from DuPont.

Often these proceedings raise complex factual and legal issues, which are subject to risks and uncertainties and which could require significant amounts of senior leadership team’s time. Litigation and other claims, along with regulatory proceedings, against the company could also materially adversely affect its operations, reputation, and/or result in the incurrence of unexpected expenses and liability. Even when the company believes liabilities are not expected to be material or the probability of loss or of an adverse unappealable final judgment is remote, the company may consider settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interest of the company, including avoidance of future distraction and litigation defense cost, and its shareholders. Information regarding certain of these matters is set forth below and in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

Litigation related to Corteva’s current businesses

Federal Trade Commission Investigation

On September 29, 2022, the FTC, along with ten state attorneys general, 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, two additional state attorneys general joined the FTC lawsuit, and another state attorney general filed a separate lawsuit against Corteva and another competitor based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit. Several proposed private class action lawsuits alleging anticompetitive conduct based on the allegations set forth in the FTC lawsuit were centralized into a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in February 2023. Further information with respect to these proceedings is set forth under “Federal Trade Commission Investigation” in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

Lorsban® Lawsuits

As of March 31, 2024, there were pending personal injury and remediation lawsuits filed against the former Dow Agrosciences LLC in California alleging injuries related to exposure to, or contamination by, chlorpyrifos, 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. Further information with respect to these proceedings is set forth under “Lorsban® Lawsuits” in Note 13 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

Inari Disputes

On September 27, 2023, Corteva filed a lawsuit in Delaware federal court against Inari Agriculture, Inc. and Inari Agriculture N.V. (collectively “Inari”) asserting claims of Plant Variety Protection infringement, indirect patent infringement, breach of contract, and civil conversion. Corteva’s lawsuit alleges Inari illegally obtained various varieties of seed technologies from a seed depository and illegally transported them abroad for the purpose of performing gene editing on the technologies and then filing a patent for such technologies. A hearing on Inari’s motion to dismiss the complaint was held in March 2024 and a decision remains pending. The case has proceeded to the discovery stage.

Bayer Disputes

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 is seeking to join the IPR proceeding. An oral hearing will occur before the PTAB in September 2024 with decisions expected by December 2024. Corteva holds numerous additional patents covering its Enlist® traits or Enlist® weed control system. Therefore, the IPR process is not expected to impact our ability to license and protect Enlist E3® traits. Corteva's AAD-1 lawsuit is stayed during pendency of the IPR.

In October 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted an ex parte reexamination of the patent for AAD-1 herbicide resistance technology used in Enlist® corn based upon Inari’s petition for review. Inari alleges the AAD-1 patent is not patentably distinct from another Corteva patent for maize technology, and therefore not valid unless Corteva files a terminal disclaimer giving up its patent term adjustment for the AAD-1 technology, which would result in the AAD-1 patent expiring in May 2025.

In August 2022, Bayer filed breach of contract/declaratory judgment lawsuit in Delaware state court against Corteva relating to an agrobacterium cross-license agreement and E3® soybeans. Bayer alleges that Corteva practiced two Bayer patents in developing E3® soybeans, and therefore, is entitled to royalties pursuant to the terms of the cross-license agreement. Further information with respect to these proceedings is set forth under “Bayer Dispute” in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

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. In March 2023, Bayer’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. Discussions continue between Bayer and Corteva to seek a resolution to these disputes. The trial is currently scheduled for October 2024.

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

As discussed below and in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements, certain of the environmental proceedings and litigation allocated to Corteva as part of the Separation from DuPont relate to the legacy EIDP businesses, including their use of PFOA, which, for purposes of this report, means collectively perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt and does not distinguish between the two forms, and PFAS, which means per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, including PFOA, PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), GenX and other perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs"). This litigation includes multiple natural resource damage lawsuits across the United States filed by municipalities and alleging PFOA contamination, as well as, lawsuits by 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.

In addition to the matters set forth in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements, on March 25, 2019, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) issued a Statewide PFAS Directive to several companies, including Chemours, DuPont, and EIDP. The Directive seeks information relating to the use and environmental release of PFAS and PFAS-replacement chemicals at and from two former EIDP sites in New Jersey, Chambers Works and Parlin, and a funding source for costs related to the NJDEP’s investigation of PFAS issues and PFAS testing and remediation.

On January 22, 2021, Chemours, DuPont, Corteva and EIDP entered into a binding memorandum of understanding containing a settlement to resolve legal disputes related to Chemours' responsibility for litigation and environmental liabilities allocated to it, and to establish a cost sharing arrangement and escrow account to be used to support and manage potential future legacy PFAS liabilities arising out of pre-July 1, 2015 conduct (the “MOU”). See Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements, for further discussion.

Other Environmental Proceedings

The company believes it is remote that the following matters will have a material impact on its financial position, liquidity or results of operations. The matters below involve the potential for $1 million or more in monetary fines and are included per Item 103(3)(c)(iii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Related to Corteva's current businesses

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 and owned and operated by AltEn LLC (“AltEn”). 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. Further information with respect to these proceedings is set forth under “Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, AltEn Facility” in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). Further information with respect to these proceedings is set forth under “California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Pittsburg Plant” in Note 13 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities, to the interim Consolidated Financial Statements.

Related to legacy EIDP businesses unrelated to Corteva’s current businesses

Divested Neoprene Facility, La Place, Louisiana - EPA Compliance Inspection

In 2016, the EPA conducted a focused compliance investigation at the Denka Performance Elastomer LLC (“Denka”) neoprene manufacturing facility in La Place, Louisiana. EIDP sold the neoprene business, including this manufacturing facility, to Denka in the fourth quarter of 2015. In the spring of 2017, the EPA, the DOJ, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, EIDP and Denka began discussions relating to the inspection conclusions and allegations of noncompliance arising under the Clean Air Act, including leak detection and repair. These discussions, which include potential settlement options, continue. Under the Separation Agreement, DuPont is defending and indemnifying the company in this matter.

New Jersey Directive Pompton Lakes

On March 27, 2019, the NJDEP issued to Chemours and EIDP a Natural Resource Damages Directive relating to chemical contamination (non-PFAS) at and around EIDP’s former Pompton Lakes facility in New Jersey. The Directive alleges that this contamination has harmed the natural resources of New Jersey. It seeks $125,000 as reimbursement for the cost of preparing a natural resource damages assessment, which the State will use to determine the extent of such damage and the amount it expects to seek to restore the affected natural resources to their pre-damage state.