YouTube Agrees to Follow Australia’s New Under-16 Social Media Ban 
Momenta Quietly Moves Toward Hong Kong IPO Amid Rising China-U.S. Tensions 
IKEA Expands U.S. Manufacturing Amid Rising Tariffs and Supply Chain Strategy Shift 
Bolsonaro Detained Over Alleged Escape Risk After Ankle Monitor Tampering 
USPS Expands Electric Vehicle Fleet as Nationwide Transition Accelerates 
Appeals Court Blocks Expansion of Fast-Track Deportations in the U.S. 
Brazil’s Supreme Court Orders Jair Bolsonaro to Begin 27-Year Prison Term 
UPS MD-11 Crash Prompts Families to Prepare Wrongful Death Lawsuit 
U.S. Justice Department Orders Intensified Probe Into Antifa and Domestic Extremist Groups 
Trump Vows Pardon for Former Honduran President as Honduras Faces Tight Election 
Amazon Italy Pays €180M in Compensation as Delivery Staff Probe Ends 
Meta Accused of Halting Internal Research on Mental Health Risks of Facebook and Instagram 
Magnum Audit Flags Governance Issues at Ben & Jerry’s Foundation Ahead of Spin-Off 
Peru’s Ex-President Martín Vizcarra Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison for Corruption 
Northwestern University to Restore Research Funding Under $75 Million Agreement with U.S. Government 
Michael Dell Pledges $6.25 Billion to Boost Children’s Investment Accounts Under Trump Initiative 
Proxy Advisors Urge Vote Against ANZ’s Executive Pay Report Amid Scandal Fallout 
Unilever (LON:ULVR) has rejected claims it forced out former Ben & Jerry’s CEO Dave Stever over the ice cream brand’s progressive activism. In a recent court filing, Unilever stated it had offered Stever a higher-paying role in its global ice cream division, which is set to spin off, but he chose to resign on March 31. The filing also seeks dismissal of Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit, which alleges Unilever tried to dismantle its board and suppress its activism, including protests against the war in Gaza and criticism of former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Unilever accused Ben & Jerry’s Chair Anuradha Mittal of using the lawsuit to publicly attack the company, claiming the brand’s “staunchly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli stance” hurt its reputation and investor relations. Ben & Jerry’s lawyer, Shahmeer Halepota, dismissed Unilever’s defense as “revisionism,” accusing the company of retaliation and suppressing dissent.
The lawsuit centers on a 2000 agreement when Unilever acquired the Vermont-based company, allowing Ben & Jerry’s to maintain an independent board to uphold its social mission. Unilever claims Mittal breached confidentiality by publicizing internal employment discussions and making false allegations.
Earlier this week, Unilever confirmed its planned ice cream division spinoff, including brands like Breyers and Magnum, remains on track to operate independently by July 1, with separate financial reporting by the fourth quarter. Despite the legal dispute, Unilever emphasized that Ben & Jerry’s is not for sale.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under No. 24-08641, marks a significant clash between corporate governance and brand activism.
