Court case to block Ben & Jerry’s sale continues
Company fears new Israeli owner could sell 'Judea and Samaria' ice cream
Could the new owner of Ben & Jerry’s Israeli business interests rename a flavour “Judea and Samaria”?
Avi Zinger, who bought the company’s Hebrew and Arabic branding from parent company Unilever in June, recently told an Israeli news outlet that he had the right to do so, and even proposed renaming “Chunky Monkey” to the biblical name for the West Bank.
And that threat, Ben & Jerry’s lawyers say, is reason enough why the sale shouldn’t legally go through.
“If Ben & Jerry’s wanted to protest the current sale and issue an ice cream flavour that supported Palestinian efforts,” their lawyer said Monday in a court hearing in New York, then they would legally be forced to transfer the ingredients, formula and labelling for the flavour to Zinger, who could then rename it something “supporting Judea and Samaria”.
The ice cream maker’s attorneys cited Zinger’s July interview with Haaretz, in which he declared, “I can do what I want” with the brand, in last week’s hearing as the brand sought an injunction against the sale. Selling “the exact same quality product with the exact opposite social stance” in Israel and the Palestinian territories, lawyers said, would constitute a breach of the company’s unique agreement allowing its board to dictate its social mission.
The suit follows more than a year of controversy and legal wrangling since Ben & Jerry’s announced it would no longer sell ice cream in “occupied Palestinian territories”. In late June, facing several lawsuits and pressure from the pro-Israel community, Unilever said it would sell the brand’s Israeli business interests to Zinger’s company, American Quality Products Ltd., which intends to use the same intellectual property to sell its products in Israel and the Palestinian territories under Hebrew and Arabic labels.
But Ben & Jerry’s is now suing to block the sale.
Unilever’s 2000 acquisition agreement with Ben & Jerry’s gives the company’s board wide discretion over the brand’s “social mission”, which its lawyer, Joseph Ahmad, said last week was being jeopardised by Unilever’s sale agreement with Zinger. Ben & Jerry’s has a history of making ice cream that promotes its Jewish founders’ progressive politics. The Israeli licensee, the company’s counsel said, now had the right to make “the exact same quality product with the exact opposite social stance”.
“Instead of ‘peace pops’, they could make ‘hate pops’,” the counsel offered as another example.
In response, David Marriott, the attorney for Unilever’s US entity, Conopco, said the company’s deal with Zinger had already closed and that the Ben & Jerry’s board lacked the authority to challenge it. In addition, Marriott questioned the argument that the sale would compromise the company’s social mission, saying, “Perceptions of unidentified third parties are not irreparable harm.”
The hearing lasted just over 30 minutes, and ended with US District Judge Andrew Carter Jr saying he would consider the arguments and render a decision at a later time.
The hearing took place a week after mediation attempts between the two parties broke down.
Meanwhile, a group of 1000 Israeli students and academics have sent a letter to Ben & Jerry’s accusing it of “occupying” lands belonging to Native American tribes, according to a report last week in The New York Post.
The letter, supported by Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Centre, accused Ben & Jerry’s of operating their Vermont factory on lands belonging to the Abenaki people.
“We have concluded that your company’s occupation of the Abenaki lands is illegal and we believe it is wholly inconsistent with the stated values that Ben & Jerry’s purports to maintain,” the letter to Ben & Jerry’s chairperson, Anuradha Mittal, said.
comments