At the rear of the combat concerning Ben & Jerry’s and its operator, Unilever.
Ben & Jerry’s is suing its operator, the buyer items giant Unilever, in an unconventional situation that seeks to prevent Unilever from advertising the distribution rights of the ice cream manufacturer in Israel to a area licensee.
Final 12 months, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of the business renowned for its stances on hot-button difficulties, reported they would close income in Israeli-occupied territories. The licensee is anticipated to continue on offering Ben & Jerry’s in these locations.
The rift concerning Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever dates to Unilever’s acquisition of the ice cream manufacturer in 2000, the DealBook publication reviews. As component of that deal, Unilever agreed to let Ben & Jerry’s impartial board, of which Unilever appoints only two out of the 11 seats, keep on to oversee the manufacturer and its image.
The unconventional arrangement gave the founders continued command despite the sale of their organization. Normally, shareholders vote in elections for the board. But this contract is involving Unilever and Conopco, which is formally the only shareholder of Ben & Jerry’s. Conopco is obliged to vote for the founders’ board picks and their successors, who are also named by Ben & Jerry’s board.
Unilever is able to choose the brand’s chief government, which is anything a board usually does, but even that man or woman is meant to defer to Ben & Jerry’s independent board when it comes to maintaining “the social obligation factors of the organization,” Ann Lipton, a professor in small business legislation at Tulane University Legislation School who has researched the acquisition, advised DealBook.
But Unilever seems to have a probable out, Ms. Lipton reported. The deal alone could possibly not be enforceable in court. Traditionally, a contract is concerning two parties. In this scenario, the arrangement could have been amongst Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s founders, but it is not, she stated.
“That’s like getting a agreement with oneself,” Ms. Lipton instructed DealBook. “If you are the only shareholder of the corporation, the concept that the company can make a deal with you is type of unheard-of. It’s pretty strange.”
She said she hadn’t heard of a comparable scenario, incorporating, “It’s a circumstance review in enterprise law course.”
Ben & Jerry’s is suing its operator, the buyer items giant Unilever, in an unconventional situation that seeks to prevent Unilever from advertising the distribution rights of the ice cream manufacturer in Israel to a area licensee.
Final 12 months, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of the business renowned for its stances on hot-button difficulties, reported they would close income in Israeli-occupied territories. The licensee is anticipated to continue on offering Ben & Jerry’s in these locations.
The rift concerning Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever dates to Unilever’s acquisition of the ice cream manufacturer in 2000, the DealBook publication reviews. As component of that deal, Unilever agreed to let Ben & Jerry’s impartial board, of which Unilever appoints only two out of the 11 seats, keep on to oversee the manufacturer and its image.
The unconventional arrangement gave the founders continued command despite the sale of their organization. Normally, shareholders vote in elections for the board. But this contract is involving Unilever and Conopco, which is formally the only shareholder of Ben & Jerry’s. Conopco is obliged to vote for the founders’ board picks and their successors, who are also named by Ben & Jerry’s board.
Unilever is able to choose the brand’s chief government, which is anything a board usually does, but even that man or woman is meant to defer to Ben & Jerry’s independent board when it comes to maintaining “the social obligation factors of the organization,” Ann Lipton, a professor in small business legislation at Tulane University Legislation School who has researched the acquisition, advised DealBook.
But Unilever seems to have a probable out, Ms. Lipton reported. The deal alone could possibly not be enforceable in court. Traditionally, a contract is concerning two parties. In this scenario, the arrangement could have been amongst Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s founders, but it is not, she stated.
“That’s like getting a agreement with oneself,” Ms. Lipton instructed DealBook. “If you are the only shareholder of the corporation, the concept that the company can make a deal with you is type of unheard-of. It’s pretty strange.”
She said she hadn’t heard of a comparable scenario, incorporating, “It’s a circumstance review in enterprise law course.”