Trump Administration Urges Judge to Allow UFC Event on White House Lawn 
BHP Shares Fall as Jansen Potash Project Costs Surge 
Microsoft Taps AWS to Support GitHub Amid AI Coding Boom 
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Suspended as Member States Consider Removal 
Carro Expands Into Australia With Acquisition of Used-Car Platform CarPlace 
Kingboard Holdings Shares Surge After HK$11.77 Billion Block Trade to Expand PCB and AI Supply Chain Business 
Biden Sues DOJ to Block Release of Audio From Classified Documents Probe 
Sable Offshore Wins Key Court Battle Over California Oil Pipeline 
Apple Signals Product Price Hikes Amid Rising Memory Chip Costs 
US Raises Concerns Over Possible ASML EUV Machine Transfer to China 
Brazil Supreme Court Convicts Eduardo Bolsonaro Over U.S. Lobbying Efforts 
DOJ Sues UCLA Over Alleged Antisemitism and Hostile Campus Environment 
Google Gemini Co-Lead Noam Shazeer Leaves for OpenAI Amid AI Talent Race 
South Korea Ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol Sentenced to 30 Years Over Martial Law Plot 
Ukrainian Drone Makers Target Japan and Asia Defense Market 
SoftBank Shares Drop as OpenAI Losses and Rising Costs Spark Investor Concerns 
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.
