Ben & Jerry’s Falls Short in Bid to Halt Board Member Selection

Ben & Jerry’s failed to convince a district court Tuesday to stop its parent company from appointing new board members as the companies fight over the ice cream maker’s social activism.

Judge P. Kevin Castel denied Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.'s emergency motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Magnum Ice Cream Co. NV and Unilever plc, according to a minute entry in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Unilever allegedly intervened to stop Ben & Jerry’s from calling for a cease-fire in Gaza and then Magnum removed all six of the company’s board members, it says. Ben & Jerry’s had asked the court not to allow for the appointment of new members.

Unilever’s alleged suppression of Ben & Jerry’s messages violate their merger agreement and another settlement between the two that gives the ice cream maker control over its social mission, Ben & Jerry’s says.

Unilever also prevented Ben & Jerry’s social activism managers from publishing a social media post in support of Palestinians fleeing the conflict with Israel, despite its more than four-decade history of supporting refugees, Ben & Jerry’s alleged in its complaint filed in 2024. Unilever previously said its actions were driven by concerns over antisemitism.

Ben & Jerry’s alleges Unilever replaced its former CEO Dave Stever in 2025 over his support for Ben & Jerry’s “social mission board.” Unilever then initiated an audit of Ben & Jerry’s charitable foundation and used it as the basis to try and remove board chair Anuradha Mittal, the ice cream maker alleges in its motion, which independent directors voted against.

After Unilever’s demerger with Magnum in December 2025, Magnum removed all six Ben & Jerry’s directors using an “extracontractual removal mechanism” in January, Ben & Jerry’s alleges in its motion.

Ben & Jerry’s argued it was likely to succeed in its bid for injunctive relief and that the removals constitute irreparable harm.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing PLLC represents Ben & Jerry’s. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP represents Unilever and Magnum.

The case is Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. v. Unilever PLC, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:24-cv-08641, 4/14/26.