The dispute between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company, the Magnum Ice Cream Company, intensified recently when Magnum accused the ice cream brand’s former board chair, Anuradha Mittal, of serious misconduct. This allegation comes amid a significant reduction in the board’s composition, now down to just two directors.
Following the acquisition of Ben & Jerry’s by Unilever in 2000, the brand maintained a strong commitment to its progressive social mission. In December 2023, Unilever spun off its ice cream division, creating Magnum, which retained a 19.9% stake in Ben & Jerry’s. Since early 2024, the brand has engaged in legal battles in the U.S. District Court in New York, contesting what it claims are efforts by Magnum and Unilever to undermine its mission and the independence of its board.
Magnum’s recent filing, dated January 20, 2024, indicates that only the CEO of Ben & Jerry’s and a Unilever appointee currently serve on the board. Mittal was ousted from her position in mid-December after Magnum deemed her unfit for service. This decision followed the introduction of nine-year term limits, resulting in the departure of two long-standing directors.
In its court filing, Magnum alleged that Mittal’s actions constituted serious misconduct, which disqualified her from board membership. It pointed to an audit conducted by Ernst & Young of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, a separate U.S. non-profit entity funded by the brand, highlighting concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest.
Magnum also noted that the three remaining independent directors declined to certify their compliance with Magnum’s code of business integrity or participate in compliance training, leading to their exit from the board as of January 1, 2024.
Mittal responded by accusing Magnum and Unilever of attempting to discredit her and erode the board’s authority. In a statement, she described Magnum’s actions as a “midnight purge” of independent directors, emphasizing her concerns about the transparency of the audit report. “These actions speak for themselves,” Mittal asserted.
In its defense, Magnum characterized the ongoing litigation as “regrettable” and expressed its commitment to supporting the Ben & Jerry’s team. The company expressed optimism about forming a new board with a majority of independent directors in the future.
Magnum also raised issues regarding the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, claiming it had frequently issued grants to organizations where Mittal and other trustees were compensated or held significant roles. The foundation expressed that it had become “collateral damage” in the ongoing dispute.
The contentious relationship between Ben & Jerry’s and its parent company began to deteriorate in 2021 when the brand announced its decision to cease sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, marking a turning point in its corporate governance dynamics. As this legal battle unfolds, the implications for both the brand and its mission remain significant.
