Ben & Jerry's sold for $326 million with 1 condition. The new owner broke it — and now the co-founder wants it back

When Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield sold Ben & Jerry's to Unilever in 2000 for a reported $326 million (1), they also extracted a promise that turned out to be the most consequential clause in the deal: The brand would retain an independent board of directors whose job was to protect its social mission, no matter who owned the company. (2)

For more than two decades, that arrangement held. Until it didn't.

Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how

Robert Kiyosaki says this 1 asset will surge 400% in a year and begs investors not to miss this ‘explosion’

Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s how to fix it ASAP

By January 1 this year, Magnum — the ice cream conglomerate spun out of Unilever — had removed all of Ben & Jerry's independent directors except for one Unilever-appointed director and CEO, Dairy Reporter noted. (3)

The independent board sued, alleging the move directly violated the original merger agreement. (4) The Ben & Jerry's Foundation subsequently won a court ruling to join that lawsuit after Magnum stopped providing it with approved funding, Vermont Business Magazine reported. (5)

"We're turning up the heat," he told the New York Times. (2) He's asked Magnum to sell Ben & Jerry's to a values-aligned investor group, and threatened a boycott of all Magnum products — which include Breyers, Klondike and Talenti — if it doesn't comply.

The legal fight centers on a governance structure that was deliberately baked into the 2000 sale agreement. At the time of the acquisition, Unilever committed that Ben & Jerry's would retain an independent board focused on "providing leadership for Ben & Jerry's social mission and brand integrity," FoodOnline reported. (6)

Cohen and Greenfield said at the time they hoped the company would "continue to expand its role in society" under Unilever's ownership. (6)

Magnum has countered that it acted within its legal and contractual rights, arguing that the removed directors had become "ineligible" to serve — some due to exceeding term limits and others over alleged misconduct — framing this as different from outright removal. The independent board calls it a coordinated dismantling. (3)

"This is about more than a contract," Liz Bankowski, President of Ben & Jerry's Foundation Board of Trustees, told Vermont Business Magazine. "It's about whether a corporation can weaponize a governance structure and withhold funding when prior commitments and values become inconvenient." (5)

Greenfield has already resigned after 47 years with the company. And the former board chair has separately filed an independent defamation case in California. (4)

The dispute isn't only a legal or ethical one but an increasingly financial one, too. Magnum shares were trading at a 52-week low heading into the company's first shareholder meeting as a public company on May 7. The stock has fallen roughly 25% from its February high, becoming a popular short-sell target among European traders. (4)

Meanwhile, the argument that purpose-driven brands are bad business is hard to make with a straight face.

According to Fortune, Dr. Bronner's grew from $4 million in revenue in 1998 to $250 million in 2025 while not investing much in traditional advertising. Patagonia's sales more than quadrupled over 20 years from $240 million to about $1.5 billion, while contributing more than $240 million to environmental non-profits. (4)

More than 130,000 people have signed a petition requesting Magnum to sell Ben & Jerry's to values-aligned investors. David Stever, the former Ben & Jerry's CEO of 35 years, was also recently named CEO of Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams — a direct rival and certified B Corp. (4)

The case raises a pointed question relevant well beyond ice cream: What's a deal-term promise actually worth when ownership changes hands?

According to a detailed governance timeline published by Dairy Reporter, Ben & Jerry's independent board controls its own composition and mission protection under the original merger agreement, even after an ownership change. Magnum's position is that its actions fall within its governance scope. (3)

A court will ultimately decide who's right.

M&A expert Farzad Mukhi, a managing director at advisory firm Kroll, told the New York Times the situation is highly unusual: "I can't think of any similar cases." (2)

For consumers, the more immediate question is simpler: The next time you reach for a frozen pint, whose values are you actually buying?

Millionaires under 43 are reshaping investing — just 25% of their portfolios are in stocks. Here’s where their money is going

Taxes are going to change for retirees under Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ — here are 4 reasons you can’t afford to waste time

Robert Kiyosaki issues grim warning for baby boomers: many could be ‘wiped out’ and homeless ‘all over’ the country

Vanguard’s outlook on U.S. stocks is raising alarm bells for retirees. Here’s why and how to protect yourself

We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our ethics and guidelines.

New York Times (1),(2); Dairy Reporter (3); Fortune (4); Vermont Business Magazine (5); FoodOnline (6)

This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com under the title: Ben & Jerry's sold for $326 million with 1 condition. The new owner broke it — and now the co-founder wants it back

This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.