McDonald's and Restaurant Brands International Face Headwinds Amid Iran Conflict and Rising Costs 
Estée Lauder Sues Jo Malone Over Trademark Dispute Involving Zara 
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's Move to End Temporary Protected Status for Somali Immigrants 
SMIC Allegedly Supplies Chipmaking Tools to Iran's Military, U.S. Officials Warn 
Nomura Upgrades PDD Holdings to Buy, Calls Stock Too Cheap to Ignore 
Valero Port Arthur Refinery Explosion Prompts $1M Lawsuit Over Worker Safety Negligence 
Google's TurboQuant Algorithm Sends Memory Chip Stocks Tumbling 
xAI Faces Federal Lawsuit Over Grok AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material 
U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down FTC Order Against TurboTax "Free" Advertising 
Judge Dismisses Sam Altman Sexual Abuse Lawsuit, But Sister Can Refile 
Jerome Powell May Stay on Fed Board Amid Criminal Investigation, Court Documents Reveal 
CK Hutchison's Panama Ports Dispute Escalates as Arbitration Claims Surpass $2 Billion 
ICE Arrests Colombian Journalist in Tennessee, Trump Administration Says She Will Receive Due Process 
Nanya Technology Shares Surge 10% After $2.5 Billion Private Placement from Sandisk and Cisco 
UBS Seeks Legal Protection Over Credit Suisse's Nazi-Era Banking Activities 
Federal Judge Blocks Pentagon's Restrictive Press Access Policy 
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.
