Latest news with #Stever
The National
28-04-2025
- Business
- The National
Unilever urges dismissal of Ben & Jerry's Gaza censorship lawsuit
Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, is calling for the dismissal of a lawsuit in which it is accused of sacking chief executive David Stever partly due to his views on Gaza and Palestine. The independent board of Ben & Jerry's updated a lawsuit last month, alleging Unilever had removed Mr Stever in part because of his social advocacy for various causes, including the Israel-Gaza war and Palestinian rights. The company says a contractual agreement with Ben & Jerry's does not guarantee 'the unfettered right to advocate on any topic it wants on behalf of Ben & Jerry's … embroil B & J and Unilever in highly controversial and divisive topics that put the businesses and their employees at risk'. It also alleges that because of actions taken by the ice cream brand's independent board in recent years, a 'fatwa' was issued against Unilever. This is a reference to a sharp decline in sales in Indonesia after the country's Ulema Council issued a religious edict in 2023 that called for the support of Palestine and prohibited any activity of support for Israel – which Unilever was accused of doing. The dismissal request, filed late on Friday, takes direct aim at Anuradha Mittal, chairwoman of Ben & Jerry's independent board of directors. 'Rather than consulting with Unilever about David Stever's future (which the Class I Directors declined to do for several weeks), Mittal went to the press with statements that Unilever had fired Stever even though she knew that to be false,' read Unilever's filing. 'In sum, it is clear that this lawsuit was just a vehicle for Mittal to go to the press with a false narrative to further her own agenda and denigrate Unilever, not to assert legitimate claims.' Unilever says Mr Stever voluntarily resigned, nullifying the accusations made by the independent board. 'I will be putting down my scoop and moving on to new adventures,' reads an email from Mr Stever, an exhibit in Unilever's request for the lawsuit's dismissal. 'I will continue to be a fan and as the 'newester' member of the ice cream for life club, I will be sure to be on high alert for the latest flavour creations and creative names that will make everyone smile. Peace, love and ice cream.' The relationship between Ben & Jerry's and Unilever has long been fraught. In 2022, Ben & Jerry's sued Unilever in an attempt to halt the sale of its Israeli business to a local franchisee – an agreement that would allow the ice cream to be sold in the occupied West Bank. The ice cream company has not been shy about taking stances on issues in the Middle East. For example, it called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza last year. In its 32-page court filing, Unilever defended its approach and attempts to edit Ben & Jerry's social media output related to the war in Gaza, along with attempts from Ben & Jerry's to issue statements in the form of press releases on the conflict. 'Unilever was willing to issue a statement, but reasonably insisted on a balanced post that not only called for a ceasefire but also condemned terrorism and called for the release of hostages, which would align with the position articulated by Pope Francis,' the company said, referencing Ben & Jerry's desire to call for a ceasefire. Unilever was also accused of censoring Ben & Jerry's social media posts showing support for Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil, who faces deportation because of his involvement in pro-Palestine protests last year. 'Like with previous posts, Unilever did not block the post but rather sought to work with the board to issue a balanced statement in support of First Amendment rights while not appearing to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' it said. Israel's punishing campaign in Gaza – which followed the 2023 attacks by Hamas-led fighters that resulted in the deaths of about 1,200 people and the capture of 240 hostages – has killed more than 52,300 Palestinians in Gaza and injured about 117,790. Ben & Jerry's has a track record stretching back decades of speaking out in support of social justice, environmental protection and human rights. 'We believe that our company has a responsibility to work to improve the quality of life for people in our local, national and international communities, and we're firmly opposed to war, firmly in favour of peace and human rights, justice,' Ben Cohen, who cofounded the ice cream company with Jerry Greenfield in 1978, told The National in an interview last month. 'We refer to it as a values-led business. If you're led by your values, you kind of have to use what tools you have available to live up to those values.' Last May, Unilever said it was planning to spin off its ice cream business – including Ben & Jerry's – by the end of 2025 as part of a larger restructuring. Unilever also owns personal hygiene brands like Dove soap and food brands such as Hellmann's mayonnaise. The independent board of Ben & Jerry's has until Friday to file a brief countering Unilever's motion to suspend the lawsuit. Willy Lowry contributed to this report from Washington
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ben and Jerry sold out to Unilever 25 years ago—now they're going to war
Under overcast skies on a brisk Wednesday last month, more than two dozen Ben & Jerry's employees at the ice cream company's global headquarters in Vermont walked out and stood silently in front of their office building. Some bowed their heads and others stared straight ahead as the wind whipped flags—Black Lives Matter, Pride, and the stars and stripes—on a nearby pole. Almost hidden in the back row was company cofounder Ben Cohen, who started the ice cream franchise in 1978 with his pal Jerry Greenfield. The troupe was protesting what Ben & Jerry's has called the firing of its CEO David Stever by the company's parent, Unilever, one of the world's largest conglomerates, with a market cap of about $150 billion. Stever had only been CEO since 2023, but he had worked for the company for 34 years. Unilever, the London-based firm behind products like Axe deodorant, Dove shampoo, Talenti ice cream, and Hellman's mayonnaise, bought the famously progressive ice cream maker in 2000, triggering alarm at the time among allies like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the state's then-governor Howard Dean, along with customers and believers in the notion that businesses can be a force for good in the world. How could Ben & Jerry's sell out? But Unilever did more than just promise to allow the company to continue mixing lefty activism and ice cream sales: The two parties labored over a lengthy merger agreement that allowed Ben & Jerry's to have an independent chair and board to oversee the company's activities around its promotions and political campaigns, according to a recent lawsuit. For years, this unheard-of arrangement worked fairly well. Late last year, however, the independent board launched a lawsuit against the company over perceived breaches of the merger agreement, and last month it added allegations about Stever's ouster to an amended complaint. In court filings, the board accuses Unilever of silencing the ice cream maker's attempts to make statements about the war in Gaza, and President Donald Trump's policies. The complaint goes on to allege that Unilever neglected to make payments to certain suppliers and left-leaning philanthropic partners, too, all of which the board says were violations of previous agreements. The board further claims that along with the fact that it should have been consulted about Stever's ouster, he was pushed out because he sided with Ben & Jerry's board over several social media posts that Unilever opposed, according to the complaint. Unilever has sought to have the court case dismissed and is challenging Ben & Jerry's board's legal standing. It also denies 'the meritless allegations from the Independent Board of Ben & Jerry's,' the company told Fortune in a statement. 'The facts presented in court will show that Unilever has worked constructively with the Independent Social Mission Board over the past 24 years, and that we remain committed to Ben & Jerry's having a social mission.' The company also says it had been 'discussing a broader, global role' at Unilever for Stever, but that he decided to step down instead. According to Unilever, it spent weeks trying to discuss potential changes to the CEO role with the board, as it's expected to do, but the board declined to engage with the company on this topic. Then, Unilever said, the board went public about its conversations with Stever. Cohen and Greenfield declined to be interviewed for this story. Stever declined to comment. The legal scuffle is taking place as Unilever prepares to spin off its ice cream division, including Ben & Jerry's, to create a new company, while the independent board worries that its authority to make bold calls to protect the company's social mission—a right that should survive through any sale or restructuring according to the agreement—will be eroded or ignored. And while Cohen is trying to buy back the company, he himself has admitted it's a long shot—after all, the company could be worth several billion dollars. On one level, the legal showdown is a wonky corporate spat over boardroom power and an unusual governance plan. But Ben & Jerry's board chair Anuradha Mittal argues that it's more than that. Instead, she sees it as a battle over the soul of a storied American ice cream company, and an important test of corporate principles in an era when major companies are actively throwing away their previous beliefs to appease a new political climate. 'This is a David and Goliath story,' she said, 'and instead of rolling over, here is David saying 'No.'' There were signs from the very beginning that the marriage was doomed. Twenty-five years ago, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield were candid about their misgivings when they sold their ice cream enterprise—then a public company—to the multinational firm in a deal that the board approved in 2000. In a statement issued after the $326 million acquisition was announced, Cohen and Greenfield let the world know that they would have preferred to have maintained control of the brand. That had been their plan before Unilever bested competing bids for the company, including their own. At the time, the going thought was that the smaller brand's noble ethos would influence how Unilever operated. Cohen separately issued a statement that opened with lyrics from a Grateful Dead song: Once in a while, you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right. The lyrics were a weird touch, but fitting for two famous Deadheads and ex-hippies. Since Ben & Jerry's was founded, the Long Island–born longtime Vermont residents have voiced their progressive opinions on everything from the military-industrial complex to racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, the criminal justice system, climate change, and CEO pay. At Ben & Jerry's, they instituted a rule that the CEO could not earn more than five times the wages of the lowest-paid worker. Ben & Jerry's and Unilever spent more than a year negotiating the merger, and there were other buyers interested in buying the ice cream company, says Shahmeer Halepota, a Houston-based attorney who is representing the brand in its legal battle. 'The only reason we went with Unilever is because they specifically promised to protect the social mission,' he told Fortune. What's more, the whole reason Unilever wanted to buy Ben & Jerry's, the lawyer added, was that its authenticity resonated with consumers. To be fair, Unilever had already built its reputation as a climate-sensitive company by 2000. Descriptions of its sustainable agriculture program impressed the Ben & Jerry's team during their initial negotiations. What's more, the Dutch businessman Paul Polman, who was CEO of the consumer goods company from 2009 to 2019, made sustainability a core focus of the business, burnishing Unilever's reputation, and his own, as a climate leader. Over the years, Ben & Jerry's brand established itself as a feisty semi-sovereign state within Unilever by advocating for things like the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 and creating a product flavor, Pecan Resist, to protest Trump policies in 2018. There were also signs of harmony between the companies. In 2020, Cohen told the New York Times that Ben & Jerry's politics seemed to be rubbing off on Unilever. Following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis that year, Ben & Jerry's was among the first brands to pull advertising from Facebook and Twitter over the platforms' failure to control hate messages, and Unilever followed the smaller brand days later. 'Continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society,' it said. Business was also booming, and Ben & Jerry's became a revenue-driving property for Unilever. The conglomerate told Fortune in a statement that 'Ben & Jerry's has thrived under Unilever since the acquisition 25 years ago, growing revenues 500% and expanding its footprint from four to nearly 40 countries.' That success, it said, 'has also enabled many millions of euros investment into Ben & Jerry's social mission activities.' The troubles that culminated in the current lawsuit began in 2021, when Ben & Jerry's said it would no longer sell its products in disputed settlement territories occupied by Israel. Selling ice cream in those areas would not be aligned with the brand's core values, the company said. (A Unilever representative was part of the committee that approved the resolution, according to Halepota and the complaint filed by Ben and Jerry's.) The policy triggered a backlash and accusations of anti-Semitism against Ben & Jerry's and Unilever. It was a charge that Greenfield and Cohen found 'absurd,' Cohen said in a TV interview, adding they were both Jewish. Cohen and Greenfield had all but stepped away from the company after the sale, but the pair remained its symbolic leaders, and both are still employees. Facing calls for boycotts, Unilever issued statements to groups like the Anti-Defamation League to say it 'rejects completely and repudiates unequivocally any forms of discrimination or intolerance.' A year later, Unilever sold the rights to distribute Ben and Jerry's products within Israel and the occupied territory to its Israeli distributor, who would use only Hebrew and Arabic on its packaging. In a legal filing, it called this a response to 'a legal and public relations crisis' created by Ben & Jerry's 2021 decision and said that public outcry was accompanied by 'the divestment of hundreds of millions of dollars in Unilever's stock.' The Ben & Jerry's board, shocked by what it saw as a betrayal, launched litigation against Unilever, settling with the company months later when Unilever recommitted to giving Ben & Jerry's the right to control the brand's mission, the complaint states. But the lawsuit claims that agreement didn't last. Instead, it says, Ben & Jerry's was thwarted in several attempts to speak out on public issues. 'Despite its contractual commitment to '[r]espect and acknowledge' the Independent Board's primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry's Social Mission and Essential Brand Integrity, Unilever has silenced each of these efforts,' the complaint reads, quoting the original agreement. One example, the board alleges in court filings, is a message that Ben & Jerry's wanted to make in 2023 during the Israel-Hamas conflict that read: 'Ben & Jerry's calls for peace and a permanent and immediate ceasefire.' In response, Unilever threatened to dismantle the Independent Board and sue directors individually if they went through with it, court documents allege. The lawsuit notes that 'over 140 countries around the world (including England, France, and Canada), Doctors Without Borders, and the Pope' had called for a ceasefire by this time. In a court filing, Unilever said it 'was resistant to issue a statement at that time without also condemning terrorism and calling for the release of hostages.' Other alleged examples described in the lawsuit include Ben & Jerry's calling on the U.K. to create a special visa for Palestinians, a statement decrying attempts to quell student protests, and an endorsement of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' resolution calling for the U.S. to stop sending weapons to Israel, citing civilian deaths. The independent board also alleges that it was muzzled when it came to issuing statements about Trump on inauguration day earlier this year, and prevented from posting about Black History Month in February. Parts of the lawsuit pull back the corporate curtain to reveal tension that was evident between the five-person independent board and Unilever's ice cream president, Peter ter Kulve. In one exchange, the Unilever executive explains to the board that, to his understanding, a Ben & Jerry's post calling for a special visa for Palestinians was pulled because of poor timing. '[I]t coincided with the Iranian missile attack on Israel,' he wrote in an email, the court document says. 'When the matter was escalated to me, I expressed concerns about the continued perception of antisemitism that is a persistent issue.' Mittal sent a pointed response, per the filing. Other than your 'clairvoyant intuition,' she asked, 'could you please point to any objective data point—such as a market study or third-party evaluation—that objectively confirmed your unilateral judgment that calling for safe passage of all refugees, including from Gaza will be viewed as antisemitism?' According to the lawsuit, Unilever's head of ice cream did not respond. The executive did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. In a court document, Unilever described Ben & Jerry's Gaza-focused proposed messages as 'one-sided company statements related to the highly divisive Palestinian conflict in the Middle East.' Unilever said in a legal filing that it sought to work with the board to ensure that its message about the student protests was balanced, and that it 'offered to work with the Board to craft an appropriate statement focused on substantive issues without personal attacks on President Trump.' It also said in a court filing it had concerns about the timing of the message about special visas. 'Unilever does not make these decisions lightly, as they consider a myriad of factors such as: geopolitical tensions, country-specific election advocacy laws, employee and customer safety, and public reception,' the court filing said. Unilever told Fortune that it 'had discussions with the Board about only a small fraction of social media posts over the years—around 2%.' In some ways, the new lawsuit is a continuation of a debate that has entangled companies across the globe over whether they ought to be advocates for political change. During the pandemic and at other periods in the past few decades, companies faced pressure from employees and some investors to take a stand on fraught topics like police brutality, abortion, and immigration. Over the past few years, however, the pendulum has shifted, with more leaders voicing opinions opposing corporate activism. Among the titans who have been clear about this issue is Nelson Peltz, the billionaire activist investor behind Trian Partners, who took a seat on the board at Unilever in 2022. Peltz's influence has been cited by business watchers as the source of several leadership changes at Unilever, including the ousting of the previous CEO. And Peltz also took issue with Ben & Jerry's advocacy work in 2024, as he explained to the Financial Times last March. 'You've got to get these politics out of the boardroom,' he said. 'Ben & Jerry's job is to sell ice cream, not to make political statements. And these people use anything for a soapbox that they have no right to do.' Peltz also said of the conflict in Israel: 'I have my own feelings about a ceasefire. Israel has got to get a few things squared away before they get a ceasefire because what happened to them was despicable.' Peltz declined to comment for this story. Unilever is planning to spin off Unilever Ice Cream by the end of 2025. The new company will include the Ben & Jerry's, Talenti, Breyer's, and Magnum brands, and will be called the Magnum Ice Cream Company, Unilever said. But Ben Cohen is seizing the moment to step into the spotlight and make it known that he wants his company back. 'In the year 2000, Unilever loved us for who we were,' Cohen told the Wall Street Journal earlier this month. 'Now we've gone separate ways in our relationship. We just need them to set us free.' Cohen also acknowledged in that interview that the odds were against his quest. Unilever told Fortune that Ben & Jerry's is 'not for sale,' adding that its ice cream division 'remains fully committed' to the company's mission. The deal that Ben & Jerry's struck with Unilever 25 years ago to maintain an independent, socially focused board should still be effective after the sale, according to its original terms. But Halepota fears that Unilever is paying lip service to the deal and questions whether the board will be empowered after the spinoff. He adds, however: "What I do trust is the independent board's fortitude to never give up the fight.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Daily Mail
24-04-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Super-woke Ben & Jerry's gets a nasty threat that will end its left-wing activism
The bitter feud between Ben & Jerry's and parent company Unilever has escalated. They have been locked in a battle over the ice cream maker's 'woke' causes, which Unilever is trying to reign in. At the same time, the co-founders of Ben & Jerry's ice-cream have asked Unilever to sell the brand back to them. So far, Unilever has said no. And now the parent company is threatening to pull funding for the Ben & Jerry's Foundation, which donates to charities and social justice organizations. Unilever has demanded an immediate audit of the foundation's donations or it will pull its roughly $5 million contribution, Reuters reported. The foundation has previously supported the Human Rights Coalition, Homes for All St Louis and Black Workers Matter. Ben Cohen, who started the much-loved brand with Jerry Greenfield, has been rallying like-minded investors to join him in buying back the company, which has been known for its activism since its founding in Vermont in 1978. It comes weeks after CEO David Stever was fired by Unilever sparking a lawsuit. When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's for $326 million in 2000, it agreed to let an independent board oversee the brand's social justice mission. However, that mission has repeatedly clashed with Unilever's corporate priorities. Tensions escalated in 2021 when Ben & Jerry's halted sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, sparking a public battle between the brand and its parent company. Now, as Unilever considers spinning off its ice cream division — which includes brands like Magnum — Cohen wants Ben & Jerry's to go its own way. 'In the year 2000, Unilever loved us for who we were,' Cohen previously told the Wall Street Journal. 'Now we've gone separate ways in our relationship. We just need them to set us free.' Unilever has held firm that Ben & Jerry's is an important part of its ice-cream business and is not for sale. Although Cohen and Greenfield are no longer on the company's board they wrote a letter in support of Stever. Ben & Jerry's claims its CEO was fired by its parent company because of his political activism Ben & Jerry's remaining bosses also filed a lawsuit in response accusing the parent company of firing Stever for his political activism. They also say Unilever violated an agreement struck when the conglomerate bought Ben & Jerry's that allowed it to continue its 'social mission' and advocate for causes. 'We spent a tremendous amount of time and energy working on that document and negotiating it,' Cohen, 74, told the Journal. 'If not for that agreement, Ben & Jerry's would have died by now, and it would be just another ice cream brand.' Ben & Jerry's claims Unilever went against the agreement when it stopped the brand speaking out against Donald Trump after he won his second presidential election in November 2024. Ben & Jerry's had planned to take the Trump administration to task on minimum wage, universal health care, abortion, and climate change, per the suit. 'Despite four decades of progressive social activism—and years of challenging the Trump administration's policies, criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with 'Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,'' Ben & Jerry's said in the lawsuit. Unilever in turn says the brand has pivoted to supporting 'one-sided, highly controversial, and polarizing topics' that put its other business interests at risk. However, Cohen - who remains an employee of Ben & Jerry's - is not ready to throw in the towel. 'Ben & Jerry's is a company with a soul,' he told the Journal.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ben & Jerry's accuses parent company Unilever of forcibly removing CEO over ‘social mission'
Ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's have stated that chief executive David Stever has been forced out - by parent company Unilever. The London Stock Market-listed conglomerate, which sells and owns the brands of a huge range of items from Dove to Marmite, bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000. During that process an independent board was created two protect the values of Ben & Jerry's, which has long held an activist approach to, in their own words, help 'meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national, and international communities'. Causes the company has spoken out on include the climate crisis, refugees and LGBTQ+ rights. Now, that independent board allege that Unilever are violating the merger agreement by attempting to 'silence' it, with a legal case filed in the United States claiming a decision to remove Mr Stever from his role was taken without consultation. The filing read: 'Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben & Jerry's personnel, including CEO David Stever, should they fail to comply with Unilever's efforts to silence the Social Mission. On March 3 2025, Unilever informed the Independent board that they were removing and replacing Mr Stever as Ben & Jerry's CEO. 'Unilever... attempted to force the independent board into rubberstamping the decision," it continued, as reported by the BBC. Mr Stever was promoted from chief marketing officer to chief executive of Ben & Jerry's in mid-2023, having risen through the ranks since joining as a factory tour guide in 1988. The Financial Times reported how Ben & Jerry's previously filed a complaint over Unilever allegedly blocking calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and offering support for Palestinian refugees, a claim which Unilever rejected. 'Dave has courageously advanced the company's social mission and values,' said Anuradha Mittal, chair of the independent board. 'What Dave hasn't done is what Unilever would like him to do, which is to oversee the dismantling of Ben & Jerry's mission, progressive values and the 2000 merger agreement that has protected Ben & Jerry's position as a wholly owned autonomous subsidiary,' she added. Unilever last month announced the surprise exit of their own CEO Hein Schumacher, with CFO Fernando Fernandez replacing him. The FTSE 100 firm has also already decided to spin off the ice creams business as a whole, with a primary listing set to take place in Amsterdam. Unilever shares are flat across 2025 so far and up 15 per cent across the past year. Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
21-03-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Popular ice cream brand sues owner over scandalous claims
In addition to being one of the top ice cream brands worldwide with a wide assortment of delicious and creative flavors, Ben & Jerry's is also known for its progressive public stance on social matters, including human rights, the environment, and the economy. As stated on the ice cream brand's website, Ben & Jerry's leads with progressive values across its business. By applying these values to its everyday business activities, it seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in all communities. Don't miss the move: SIGN UP for TheStreet's FREE Daily newsletter In 2000, Unilever, a UK-based multinational consumer goods manufacturer, acquired the Ben & Jerry's brand for $326 million. At the time, both parties claimed this deal would help expand the brand and better meet consumer demands, benefiting the two companies' businesses. Related: SHEIN sued by luxury fashion house over controversial issue However, this sweet and exciting acquisition has turned sour as the parent company and the ice cream maker seem to have very different views about how to run the business. On Mar. 18, Ben & Jerry's filed a lawsuit against its parent company, Unilever (UL) , with the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, claiming that the company unlawfully fired its CEO, David Stever, for an ongoing dispute regarding the ice cream brand's social mission and brand integrity. According to the filing, Unilever violated its Merger Agreement, Settlement Agreement, and Settlement Amendment made in 2000, as it stipulates that the CEO may only be removed from their role after consulting and discussing the removal with an advisory committee of the company's board. In the lawsuit, Ben & Jerry's claims, "Unilever has repeatedly failed to recognize and respect the Independent Board's primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry's Social Mission and Brand Integrity, including threatening Ben & Jerry's personnel should the company speak out regarding issues that Unilever prefers to censor." The ice cream brand also states that the litigation has been initiated to protect its three-part mission "from Unilever's unilateral erosion and to safeguard the company from Unilever's repeated overreaches." Related: Kroger CEO resigns amid controversial investigation Stever has been with Ben & Jerry's for nearly 37 years, starting as a tour guide in 1988, later serving as CMO for 12 of those years, and ultimately rising to the role of CEO in May 2023. However, on Mar. 3 of this year, Unilever removed Stever as CEO for allegedly staying committed to Ben & Jerry's social mission and brand integrity rather than due to issues in his laboral performance. This recent lawsuit sparked from an initial lawsuit filed in November of last year, accusing Unilever of inappropriate muzzling as the parent company was allegedly censoring Ben & Jerry's from speaking out on its political stands regarding the current Israeli-Palestine conflict. In the filing, Ben & Jerry's demands a trial by jury and seeks monetary restitution for attorney's fees and costs and all other relief deemed appropriate by the court. As controversial as these claims may sound, this is not the first time Ben & Jerry's has tried suing its parent company, as they have had conflicts regarding similar issues in the past. More Retail News: Popular apparel retail chain is looking at big changes after latest announcementPopular fast food chain announces major partnership to destroy rivalsGirl Scout cookies announce unexpected new food partnership In 2022, Ben & Jerry's filed a lawsuit against Unilever for preventing it from halting ice cream sales in east Jerusalem and the Israeli-occupied West Bank since they claimed the continuing production would hurt the ice cream maker's social mission, causing harm to its reputation. Ultimately, a federal judge rejected the request. A Unilever spokesperson replied to The Street's request for comment regarding the Mar. 18 lawsuit with the following: "In line with the terms of the acquisition agreement, decisions on the appointment, compensation and removal of the Ben & Jerry's CEO will be made by Unilever after good faith consultation and discussion with the B&J's Independent Board. Regrettably, despite repeated attempts to engage the Board and follow the correct process, we are disappointed that the confidentiality of an employee career conversation has been made public. We hope that the B&J Independent Board will engage as per the original, agreed process." Ben & Jerry's didn't immediately respond to The Street's request for comment. Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
