A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed major portions of a lawsuit on Friday brought by Ben & Jerry’s against its former parent company, Unilever. The ice cream maker had accused Unilever of attempting to silence its social activism and dismantle its independent board. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth in the 10-count complaint, while allowing two claims regarding alleged missed payments to proceed.
The legal conflict originated from a 2000 merger agreement that granted Ben & Jerry’s an independent board and the right to pursue social missions. Tensions between the companies rose in 2021 after Ben & Jerry’s decided to stop selling products in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s alleged that Unilever later censored its speech regarding the war in Gaza and planned criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump, while Unilever denied these claims and stated that an ousted chief executive had resigned voluntarily.
Judge Castel ruled that the merger agreement did not give Ben & Jerry’s directors or its foundation the legal standing to sue on behalf of the company regarding the removal or appointment of directors. However, the judge clarified that the directors could continue to challenge new board eligibility requirements and seek compensation for alleged missed payments on their own behalf. Magnum, an Amsterdam-based company that took ownership of Ben & Jerry's after its spinoff from Unilever last year, will now serve as the primary defendant.
At the center of the remaining litigation are concrete financial figures totaling $4.5 million. This includes a disputed $2.5 million payment allegedly owed to Ben & Jerry’s and $2 million intended to support Palestinian almond farmers following a 2022 settlement. For the involved parties, the outcome will determine whether these specific funds—which translate to significant operational capital for the foundation and its supported agricultural initiatives—will be paid out. The ruling also sets a precedent for how "social mission" clauses in merger agreements are interpreted by federal courts when a subsidiary clashes with its parent corporation.
What happens next depends on the progression of the two surviving claims regarding the $4.5 million in payments. While a specific trial date for these claims was not reported, the judge’s order allows the directors to pursue these funds in their own names. Additionally, Unilever and Magnum are currently seeking the dismissal of a separate defamation lawsuit filed in San Francisco by Anuradha Mittal, the former chair of Ben & Jerry’s board, who was removed from her position in December. The brand continues to operate under Magnum, which also manages labels such as Breyers and Klondike.