By Jessica DiNapoli

NEW YORK, Dec 7 (Reuters) – The chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board said she has no plans to resign as Unilever pressures her ahead of Monday’s public spinoff of its Magnum ice ​cream division, which will include the Vermont-based brand.

Magnum, a longtime division of the consumer goods conglomerate, said ‌last month that the chair, Anuradha Mittal, “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations, without providing further details.

Magnum will list publicly on Euronext ‌on Monday, and is inheriting a deepening corporate feud between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s, stemming from the politically progressive brand’s stance on the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, a U.S.-based non-profit where Mittal is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Mittal has been the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board since 2018, according to ⁠her LinkedIn profile, and a trustee of ‌the foundation since 2012, according to its website.

ATTEMPT TO ‘UNDERMINE’ THE BOARD

“The so-called audit of the foundation was a manufactured inquiry — engineered to attempt to discredit me,” Mittal said in her statement, ‍saying she will not resign. “It is important to understand that this is not simply an attack on me as chair. It is Unilever’s attempt to undermine the authority of the Board itself.”

Mittal said she is carrying out her role as chair with respect for the ​social mission and product quality responsibilities given to the board in Ben & Jerry’s 2000 merger agreement with Unilever.

Magnum, along ‌with Unilever, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

As a standalone unit, Magnum will command roughly one-fifth of the global ice cream market. The company has warned in securities filings that actions by Ben & Jerry’s could result in reputational damage, boycotts or investor claims.

The Ben & Jerry’s independent board is aimed at preserving the brand’s social mission, while the foundation, a separate U.S.-based non-profit, receives millions in contributions solely from the company based on how much of the premium ice ⁠cream is sold.

YEARS OF CLASHES

The board has sued Unilever twice in recent ​years, most recently accusing its corporate parent of censoring it over ​statements it wanted to make on Gaza. Unilever has said the brand has evolved into one-sided advocacy on polarizing topics.

In a separate statement, the foundation’s board of trustees said it has been told ‍that the audit’s “central unresolved issue is ⁠Unilever/Magnum’s demand that Anuradha Mittal … be removed as a Foundation trustee.”