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.

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.