Woolworths Faces Fresh Class Action Over Alleged Underpayments, Shares Slide 
ANZ Faces Legal Battle as Former CEO Shayne Elliott Sues Over A$13.5 Million Bonus Dispute 
Colombia’s Clan del Golfo Peace Talks Signal Mandatory Prison Sentences for Top Leaders 
Federal Judge Orders Restoration of SEVIS Status for Tufts PhD Student Rumeysa Ozturk 
California Jury Awards $40 Million in Johnson & Johnson Talc Cancer Lawsuit 
Robinhood Expands Sports Event Contracts With Player Performance Wagers 
Supporters Gather Ahead of Verdict in Jimmy Lai’s Landmark Hong Kong National Security Trial 
Fortescue Expands Copper Portfolio With Full Takeover of Alta Copper 
Tunisia Protests Grow as Opposition Unites Against President Kais Saied’s Rule 
Strategy Retains Nasdaq 100 Spot Amid Growing Scrutiny of Bitcoin Treasury Model 
SUPERFORTUNE Launches AI-Powered Mobile App, Expanding Beyond Web3 Into $392 Billion Metaphysics Market 
Treasury Wine Estates Shares Plunge on Earnings Warning Amid U.S. and China Weakness 
Judge Orders Return of Seized Evidence in Comey-Related Case, DOJ May Seek New Warrant 
DOJ Sues Loudoun County School Board Over Transgender Locker Room Policy 
Preservation Group Sues Trump Administration to Halt $300 Million White House Ballroom Project 
Nvidia Weighs Expanding H200 AI Chip Production as China Demand Surges 
Blackstone Leads $400 Million Funding Round in Cyera at $9 Billion Valuation 
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.
