Oakland activist Anuradha Mittal, long a key player on Ben & Jerry’s independent board, is now at the center of a full-on corporate brawl. The brand’s newly spun-off parent has accused her of serious misconduct in a federal court filing, a move that follows her mid-December removal and a governance shake-up that, according to court papers, left the once-expansive board sharply reduced. The clash turns up the volume on a years-long fight over how far company owners can go in reining in Ben & Jerry’s social mission, a debate closely watched by local nonprofits and progressive donors tied to the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation.
Magnum’s Filing Turns Up the Heat
In a court filing made public on Tuesday, The Magnum Ice Cream Company told a U.S. District Court in New York that Ben & Jerry’s CEO and a Unilever appointee were the only remaining directors and that Mittal “had engaged in serious misconduct that rendered her ineligible to serve on the board,” according to Reuters. The filing says an Ernst & Young audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation flagged governance and conflict-of-interest concerns tied to some grants. Magnum also contends that several independent directors declined to certify compliance with a new code of business integrity and thus effectively left the board.
Audit Sparks Foundation Friction
Magnum says the foundation had regularly made grants to organizations where trustees, including Mittal, held senior roles and received compensation or other benefits. The foundation has pushed back, calling itself collateral damage and warning that withheld funding could jeopardize grants to small community groups, according to reporting by the Boston Globe. Foundation leaders say they never received a promised copy of the auditors’ report and that they have already adopted some recommended governance policies. That tug-of-war over money and oversight is a core reason the charity and the corporate owners are now asking a judge to sort out their respective rights and obligations.
Mittal Pushes Back From Oakland
Mittal, who founded and leads the Oakland Institute, a Bay Area research and advocacy organization, has accused Magnum and Unilever of trying to discredit her and undermine the board’s authority. In a statement, she criticized what she described as a “midnight purge” of independent directors and has called some of the corporate moves a public smear campaign, as reported by Reuters. For background on her local work and profile, see the Oakland Institute.
High Stakes for the Brand and Its Charity
Ben & Jerry’s cofounders negotiated a 2000 merger arrangement meant to protect the brand’s social mission and give an independent board authority over advocacy and product integrity. The company lays out that governance structure on its website at Ben & Jerry’s. The company has pointed to those protections in litigation that has been active since 2024, while Magnum and Unilever argue that new compliance rules and the audit findings justify their governance moves. The current filings will test how much control the corporate owners can exert over board composition and charitable funding under the merger agreement and nonprofit rules.
What Comes Next in the Courtroom
The case is likely to generate more court papers and motions in the Southern District of New York as the foundation and the independent board try to protect both funding and autonomy. Local partners that rely on small foundation grants have warned that paused payments could have immediate effects on grassroots organizing budgets. For the initial report that prompted this coverage, see the Star-Advertiser.
