Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Top Stories

Editor's Pick

Unilever beats shareholder case over Ben & Jerry’s Israel boycott


A Manhattan federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Unilever Plc on Tuesday that claimed the company misled United States investors by not immediately disclosing a decision by its Ben & Jerry’s unit to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

A Michigan pension fund sued in June 2022, seeking damages for a drop in Unilever shares after Ben & Jerry’s announced in July 2021 it would stop sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and parts of East Jerusalem.

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled on Tuesday that Unilever was not required to disclose the boycott when Ben & Jerry’s board decided on it in 2020 because Unilever had ultimate control over whether to implement it.

While Ben & Jerry’s board oversees its social mission, Unilever retained authority over financial and operational decisions when it bought the ice cream company in 2000.

Schofield said the delay in announcing the board’s resolution was likely “to determine what, if anything, to do about it.”

An attorney representing the pension fund for fire and police in the Michigan community of St. Clair Shores and a Unilever spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The pension fund had sought damages for those who held Unilever American depositary receipts in July 2021, when they fell after several U.S. states reviewed their relationships with the British consumer goods company and some Jewish groups accused Ben & Jerry’s of antisemitism.

Founded in 1978, Ben & Jerry’s has long positioned itself as socially conscious. It said in July 2021 that selling ice cream in the occupied Palestinian territories was “inconsistent with our values.”

Most countries consider Israeli settlements in those territories illegal, which Israel disputes. In 2022, Unilever sold its interest in Ben & Jerry’s operations in Israel.

The Vermont-based ice cream maker sued to block the sale. The companies settled the dispute in December.

The case is City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unilever Plc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-05011. — Reuters

Neil Banzuelo

You May Also Like


As the world seeks sustainable and energy-efficient solutions for heating and cooling, the heat pump market is experiencing a significant surge. According to the...

Editor's Pick

Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), the oldest international bank in the country,...


<?xml encoding=”utf-8″ ?????????> The business experts at Forbes Advisor have conducted an analysis of the most recent UK business demography statistics report from the...


<?xml encoding=”utf-8″ ?????????> Economists have warned that calls from Conservative MPs for Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to cut taxes after improved borrowing data emerged show...

Disclaimer:, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice.
The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2022 Secrets Of Richdads. All Rights Reserved.