The founders of Ben and Jerry’s have accused British consumer giant Unilever of violating a 22-year-old agreement that could lead to the sale of the ice cream in the occupied West Bank.
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who founded the company in Vermont in 1978 with a mission to “advance human rights and dignity,” said they could no longer “sit by idly” after Unilever sold the its interest in the ice cream to an Israeli license. owner
The founders say the sale violates an agreement signed when Unilever bought the ice cream brand in 2000 for $326 million.
“This agreement gave authority over the social mission to the independent board of Ben & Jerry’s,” Cohen said in an interview with US network MSNBC on Sunday night. “Unilever has usurped its authority and reversed the decision that was made and we cannot allow this to happen, we cannot stand idly by.
“That’s essentially saying, ‘Well, the independent board doesn’t matter.'”
Greenfield said the “social mission” agreement “lasts in perpetuity … and must be respected.”
Unilever, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment, said it retained the right to make operational decisions for Ben & Jerry’s and that the sale of the license could not be undone. London-based Unilever sold the Israeli arm of Ben & Jerry’s to Avi Zinger, the owner of American Quality Products (AQP) which held the license.
Ben & Jerry’s independent board had announced it would not renew a license with AQP, which made and distributed the ice cream in Israel, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, when it expired at the end of the year. He said selling his products in the occupied Palestinian territories was “incompatible with our values”.
This led Zinger to sue Unilever. This lawsuit was settled with the sale of the license.
Ben & Jerry’s sued Unilever in July, alleging the sale of the license violated the terms of Unilever’s 2000 acquisition agreement.
“The company’s core values of promoting human rights and dignity, supporting social and economic justice for historically marginalized communities … are integral to Ben & Jerry’s identity,” the lawsuit filed said in New York. He warned that “without the intervention of this court, the independence of the Ben & Jerry’s board of directors will be lost, and the integrity of the company’s brand … will be tarnished forever.”
However, a US district judge last month denied Ben & Jerry’s request for a preliminary injunction blocking the deal with the licensee.
Ben & Jerry’s said earlier this month that it planned to amend its lawsuit to challenge the sale. Unilever must respond by November 1.
The long-running saga adds to a series of crises for the consumer goods giant. In January, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) rejected Unilever’s £50bn bid for its consumer healthcare arm, an aborted deal that sparked a row between Dove and Hellmann’s owner shareholders.