Judge narrows Ben & Jerry's 'silencing' lawsuit
A US federal judge has dismissed most of Ben & Jerry's lawsuit against Unilever regarding claims of censorship and interference with the brand's social activism. Two claims regarding missed payments remain active in the case.
Why it matters
The ruling highlights the legal complexities of corporate acquisitions that include independent boards and social mission mandates.
A United States federal judge has dismissed major portions of a Ben & Jerry's lawsuit accusing its former parent company Unilever of trying to silence the ice cream maker's social activism, dismantle its board and stop funding its namesake foundation.
US District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan dismissed seven claims and part of an eighth in a 10-count complaint by Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's and by various independent directors.
Judge Castel also said Magnum, the Amsterdam-based company that has owned Ben & Jerry's since it was spun off from Unilever last year, will take Unilever's place as the primary defendant.
The dismissed claims relate primarily to how Ben & Jerry's operates, while the two claims that survived in full relate to missed payments by Unilever.
Unilever's 2000 purchase of Ben & Jerry's had preserved substantial and uncommon freedoms for the ice cream company, relative to most acquisitions.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in