The Magnum Ice Cream Company has welcomed a US court decision narrowing a lawsuit brought by former Ben & Jerry’s independent directors over the ice-cream brand’s activism and changes to its governance.
Judge Kevin Castel of the federal court in Manhattan on Friday threw out most of the claims brought by former Ben & Jerry’s independent directors, dismissing seven of the ten counts and trimming another.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
He also held that Magnum, the Amsterdam-headquartered ice-cream business created from Unilever’s spin-off last year, should stand as the main defendant in place of the FMCG conglomerate.
The case was filed by former Class I directors linked to Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It accused Unilever and Magnum of breaching commitments dating back to the UK-listed group’s 2000 acquisition of the US ice-cream brand, under which Ben & Jerry’s retained unusual protections around its board structure, social mission and foundation.
In a statement, Magnum said: “We welcome the court’s decision to significantly narrow the scope of the unwarranted litigation brought by the plaintiffs.”
The company added: “The decision to grant our request and drop Ben & Jerry’s from the case rightly demonstrates that the former directors had no right to sue on behalf of Ben & Jerry’s, which is thriving under TMICC’s ownership.”
Two claims that remain in full relate to previous settlement agreements with Unilever. A further claim that partially survives relates solely to an ongoing governance dispute.
According to Reuters, the surviving claims include allegations tied to missed payments under a 2022 settlement over the sale of Ben & Jerry’s trademark rights in Israel.
“On the outstanding claims, now significantly narrower in scope, the Judge has ruled only on whether there is legal basis for the claim to proceed – not on their merits,” Magnum said.
“As we have always said in relation to these claims, our focus is and always has been solely on ensuring Ben & Jerry’s operates on a solid foundation of integrity and good governance – in line with the spirit and letter of the merger agreement – and we remain fully confident in our case.”
The dispute follows years of tension over Ben & Jerry’s board independence and activism, including its stance on the occupied West Bank and criticism of US policy.
Separate governance changes introduced last year imposed a nine-year maximum term for independent directors, leading to the planned departure of chair Anuradha Mittal and two other board members when their terms expire in 2026.
