Lawsuit against Ben & Jerry's announcement a year ago it would not sell in occupied west bank

Ben & Jerry's announcement almost a year ago that it would no longer sell ice cream in alleged "occupied Palestinian territories" continues to provoke outrage, as it finds itself a target. Ben & Jerry's initial announcement caused a large number of state pension funds and other sources to get rid of the company while devaluing its investment potential. According to some estimates, Unilever lost about 8% of its value of more than $ 4 billion in the six days following the Israeli announcement.

It is unclear whether the argument will have weight in court. Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000 from the company's Jewish owners Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, as part of a unique ownership agreement that allows Bank & Jerry's to have a separate, semi-autonomous board of directors to make social-justice-oriented decisions in accordance with its funding agreement. task. The British conglomerate has long argued that it has no official control over board decisions.
However, there are signs that Unilever had at least some advance notice of the Ben & Jerrys board decision and took some measure of action without the attention of the board. Board Chairman Anuradha Mittal told NBC News last year that Unilever had changed the board's initial draft statement, adding a section committing to the continued sale of ice cream within Israel's 1967 borders - a commitment that Ben & Jerrys' board did not approve.

Unilever then issued the amended statement itself. A separate statement from Ben & Jerry's bt for a new lawsuit. This week, the Michigan Police and Fire Department pension fund sued the parent company of ice cream maker Unilever, in which the fund has shares, alleging that the concern incorrectly concealed Ben & Jerry's announcement from shareholders.
The St. Clair Shores Foundation, a Detroit suburb of about 60,000 people with no synagogues, claims Unilever should have warned its shareholders ahead of the subsidiary's move, knowing it could cause the company to lose value. The lawsuit seeks to become a class-action lawsuit.oard of directors stated that the final wording "does not reflect the position of the independent board of directors, nor has it been approved by the independent board of directors." Ben & Jerry's said its decision in 2021 to stop the sale in the West Bank, which came in the wake of Israel's violent clash with Hamas, in which Israeli forces killed hundreds of Palestinians and Hamas killed more than a dozen Israelis, does not amount to a boycott.
Still, that hasn’t stopped outsiders from putting pressure on Unilever seeking to get it to somehow change Ben & Jerry’s policy. Last week, New York Governor Kathy Hochol issued a final warning to Unilever that the state plans to sell its funds from the company due to Israel's decision not to take more decisive action against its subsidiary. The move follows steps taken by Illinois, Arizona and a number of other states that patrolled pension funds and other investments from Unilever, often by using state laws restricting businesses with companies that support Israeli boycotts.