NRW Holdings Shares Surge After Securing Major Rio Tinto Contract and New Project Wins 
Nvidia Confirms Major OpenAI Investment Amid AI Funding Race 
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis 
Citigroup Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Sexual Harassment by Top Wealth Executive 
Denso Cuts Profit Forecast Amid U.S. Tariffs and Rising Costs 
SpaceX Updates Starlink Privacy Policy to Allow AI Training as xAI Merger Talks and IPO Loom 
Trump Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Signals Rising Tensions Between Wall Street and the White House 
DOJ Sues Virginia Over Failure to Provide Full Voter Registration Records 
Google Seeks Delay on Data-Sharing Order as It Appeals Landmark Antitrust Ruling 
Elon Musk Seeks $134 Billion in Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft Over Alleged Wrongful Gains 
Court Allows Expert Testimony Linking Johnson & Johnson Talc Products to Ovarian Cancer 
CK Hutchison Unit Launches Arbitration Against Panama Over Port Concessions Ruling 
Qantas to Sell Jetstar Japan Stake as It Refocuses on Core Australian Operations 
Hyundai Motor Lets Russia Plant Buyback Option Expire Amid Ongoing Ukraine War 
AMD Shares Slide Despite Earnings Beat as Cautious Revenue Outlook Weighs on Stock 
Elon Musk’s Empire: SpaceX, Tesla, and xAI Merger Talks Spark Investor Debate 
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.
