Skip to main content

Featured

Jerry Greenfield Quits Ben & Jerry’s After 47 Years, Citing Unilever “Silencing” Over Gaza

  Unilever and Ben & Jerry's have clashed since 2021, when the ice cream maker said it would stop sales in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield has resigned after nearly five decades at the iconic ice cream brand, deepening a long-running feud with parent company Unilever over its stance on the Gaza conflict. In an open letter shared by partner Ben Cohen, Greenfield said the company’s independence — enshrined in its 2000 merger agreement with Unilever — had eroded, leaving its social mission “silenced.” The rift traces back to 2021, when Ben & Jerry’s halted sales in Israeli-occupied West Bank settlements, a move Unilever opposed. The dispute escalated as the brand’s social mission board described Israel’s war on Gaza as “genocide,” a rare position for a major U.S. company. Unilever’s ice cream division, Magnum, thanked Greenfield for his contributions but rejected his claims, saying it sought constructive dialogue to preserve the...
Post a Comment
Read more

article

Labels

Canadian Manufacturers of COVID-19 Protective Equipment Sue Ottawa for $5 Billion in Damages

 

Canadian manufacturers who produce masks and other protective equipment to combat COVID-19 are pursuing legal action against the federal government, seeking more than $5 billion in damages. Their claim alleges that Ottawa misled them regarding the purchase and promotion of their products.

In a statement of claim filed in Federal Court, the companies and their industry association assert that the government made “negligent misrepresentations” that led them to invest in personal protective equipment innovations, manufacturing, and production. These misrepresentations spanned a three-year period starting in March 2020. The companies and the Canadian Association of PPE Manufacturers contend that the government provided misleading information about markets, direct assistance, flexible procurement, and long-term support.

The Canadian government had communicated through an initiative called Canada’s Plan to Mobilize Industry to fight COVID-19 that there would be new measures to directly support businesses in rapidly scaling up production or retooling their manufacturing lines. However, despite identifying masks and respirators as vital items for an airborne pandemic, the government did not contract with the Canadian companies, invoking a national security exception for procurement. Furthermore, in June 2021, the government allegedly promised a 10-year contract with the industry association and businesses to compensate for not purchasing protective equipment from domestic firms.

The companies claim that these misrepresentations resulted in approximately $88 million in investment losses and a further $5.4 billion in projected lost market opportunities over a ten-year period. They emphasize that this promise came from the highest levels of the Canadian government and was propagated across all relevant departments.

As the court case proceeds, the federal government will have an opportunity to respond to these unproven allegations. The manufacturers’ “special relationship” with the government, born out of a duty of care to small- and medium-sized businesses, underscores the significance of this legal battle.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment