US Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii Gun Carry Law on Private Property 
Australia Sues Amazon Over Prime Video Ads and Subscription Terms 
ShareChat Eyes 2027 IPO After Reaching Operational Profitability, Report Says 
DOJ Sues Virginia Over Law Enforcement Mask Ban 
Supreme Court Backs Lisa Cook, Defends Federal Reserve Independence Against Trump Firing Attempt 
Fortescue Faces Class Action Over Sexual Harassment Claims at Australian Mining Sites 
DOJ Clears Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Without Conditions 
Apple Challenges India Antitrust Probe, Says CCI Copied Rivals’ Claims in App Store Case 
SK Holdings, KKR Launch $1.3B Renewable Energy Venture in South Korea 
California Drivers Sue BP, Walmart, 7-Eleven Over Alleged AI Gas Price Fixing 
TSMC CoWoS Capacity Forecast Raised as Mizuho Sees AI Server CPU Demand Surging Through 2027 
US Appeals Court Keeps Trump’s 10% Global Tariff in Effect During Ongoing Legal Battle 
Kawasaki Heavy Shares Slide on Report of ¥200 Billion Capital Raise Plan 
In a rebuke to Trump, the Supreme Court rules that birthright citizenship is the law of the land 
South Korea Ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol Sentenced to 30 Years Over Martial Law Plot 
Meta Stock Jumps as AI Cloud Expansion Challenges AWS, Microsoft, and Google 
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.
