Unilever is set to complete the operational demerger of its ice cream division this week (July 1, 2025), but legal wrangles with one of its top food brands are giving investors food for thought.
The CPG major – which is spinning off Ice Cream to focus on its core portfolio of home, personal care and beauty products – wants a New York district court to throw out Ben ⁘ Jerry's revised complaint as it seeks to relieve investor concerns regarding the new Magnum Ice Cream Company, as the newly-formed entity will be known.
In a motion to dismiss seen by us, Unilever alleges that Ben ⁘ Jerry's (B⁘J's) directors cannot sue the parent company or issue public statements on 'controversial and divisive topics'.
The multinational also goes on to accuse B⁘J's chair Anuradha Mittal for directing the brand to 'recklessly focus' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the detriment of the wider business.
Unilever's motion offers a glimpse into how the group views B⁘J's allegations and highlights the rift between the two parties at a crucial juncture in their relationship.
In a major rebuke of B⁘J's case, Unilever claims the directors have 'limited rights' spanning the ice cream brand's social mission – but lack the authority to sue. By law and contact, they 'are not B⁘J, do not control B⁘J, and cannot sue as if they are B⁘J', the motion reads.
Unilever also attempts to quash B⁘J's stance that the brand had been 'muzzled' – stating that B⁘J's Mittal had 'unilaterally' issued statements to the press despite being barred by contract from doing so.
Unilever details 'the turmoil' of dealing with the aftermath of B⁘J's decision to pull out of the West Bank. In 2021, the B⁘J leadership said it would stop selling ice cream in areas with Israeli settlements, only for Unilever to sell the brand's IP rights to a distributor in 2022 to continue trading. B⁘J then sued Unilever over alleged overreaches, but the two sides settled out of court.
Read more: Visit website
No comments:
Post a Comment