Beyoncé buys complete control of Ivy Park from mogul Philip Green following claims of sexual harassment
Parkwood Entertainment, owned by megastar Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, issued a statement on Thursday that it had acquired 100 percent of Ivy Park. In 2014, Knowles-Carter and British billionaire Philip Green combined to create the line of athleisure clothing, which uses the star power of Beyoncé’s name and image in its advertising to sell leggings, sports bras, and hoodies.
Green has known Beyonce for at least the last 13 years and she performed at his son’s bar mitzvah in 2005, but with allegations that Green has trafficked in racism and sexual harassment, the move may be aimed to sever all remaining ties.
Green is currently facing an investigation into the allegations and had used a court injunction to prevent the media from talking about the court case until Peter Hain, a member of Parliament, named Green publicly. According to The Telegraph, Green, like embattled movie producer Harvey Weinstein and imprisoned actor and serial rapist Bill Cosby, used non-disclosure agreements to ensure the silence of his victims. Knowles-Carter has been under pressure from varying groups since the allegations against Green were made public. Yasmeen Hassan, global director of the human rights group Equality Now, told English media outlet the Times that “Beyoncé has put herself forward as a women’s rights activist… She and her team need to look closely at these allegations.” Knowles-Carter has not yet commented publicly about the allegations against Green.
Parkwood Entertainment claimed in its statement that the buy-out had been in talks for almost a year, and Topshop-Arcadia will fulfill the existing orders. Topshop, which is owned by Green, is a high-end clothing brand which debuted the initial offering of Ivy Park in 2016 to grand fanfare and sales.
Zelda Perkins, one of Weinstein’s first public accusers who had to void her NDA to tell her story, explained to The Telegraph, “NDAs have become weaponised. They were originally very useful things to protect commercial property and company secrets which, of course, is fair enough. But, in terms of them being used for anything else, there has to be legislation to stop that. There is no place for NDAs at all around any of these types of misdemeanours. If that protection is available then it perpetuates that sort of behaviour.”