A federal judge has dismissed significant portions of a lawsuit filed by Ben & Jerry's against its former parent company, Unilever, which alleged efforts to silence the ice cream maker's social activism, dismantle its board, and halt funding for its foundation.
US District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven of the ten claims brought forth by the Vermont-based company and its independent directors. The two claims that fully survived involve allegations of missed payments by Unilever.
Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000, preserving for the ice cream company substantial freedoms, including an independent board and the ability to continue its social mission, a practice dating back to its 1978 founding by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield.
The relationship began to deteriorate in 2021 when Ben & Jerry's decided to cease sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The company accused Unilever of violating the 2000 merger agreement by censoring its speech, which included protests against the war in Gaza and efforts to suppress criticism of former President Trump. Ben & Jerry's also alleged Unilever violated a 2022 settlement over trademark rights in Israel by failing to pay $2.5 million to the ice cream company and $2 million designated for Palestinian almond farmers.
Unilever has denied censoring Ben & Jerry's, stating that the former chief executive voluntarily resigned.
Judge Castel ruled that the merger agreement's "plain meaning" did not grant Ben & Jerry's Class I directors or the Ben & Jerry's Foundation the right to sue on behalf of the company, particularly concerning the appointment and removal of directors. However, the judge indicated that the directors could challenge new board eligibility requirements and pursue claims related to missed payments in their own capacity, not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's.
Unilever and Magnum, the company that acquired Ben & Jerry's when it was spun off from Unilever last year, have agreed that claims over the missed payments may proceed. Magnum has welcomed the judge's decision, stating it significantly narrowed the case and that the Ben & Jerry's brand continues to thrive.
Separately, Ben & Jerry's and Magnum are facing a defamation lawsuit in San Francisco filed by Anuradha Mittal, who was removed as chair of Ben & Jerry's independent board. Mittal accused the companies of discrediting her for her support of Palestinian rights.