How the Wilmar-Unity partnership turned into a standoff

For much of the last decade, Unity Foods looked like a familiar Pakistani corporate reinvention story. A listed company that had begun life in textiles repositioned itself into the country’s vast edible-oil and staples market, expanding through capacity, branding, and repeated capital raises.

Meanwhile its partner, Wilmar International, comes from a very different scale. Singapore-listed and sprawling across palm oil, oilseed crushing, commodity trading, and consumer food products, Wilmar operates as one of Asia’s largest agrifood groups, built around supply chains and risk management. A company that, quite literally, sits atop the food chain.

When the two companies became linked up, the story seemed straightforward, a global agrifood major taking a strategic position in a local platform in a large consumption market. And for several years, that narrative largely held. But then, in 2025 and early 2026, it began to unravel.

Two companies from different ends of the food chain

Wilmar’s operations span sourcing, processing, refining, trading, and distribution of key agricultural commodities across Asia. The company often invests through subsidiaries, joint ventures, or “associate” stakes in local companies that provide market access.

So when Wilmar disclosed a $150 million provision for losses linked to an associated company in Pakistan, it raised a few eyebrows. Bloomberg later confirmed that company to be Unity Foods. This single line item substantiated the claims of a rift in, what had previously been, a quiet investment relationship into a matter of public scrutiny.

Unity Foods occupies a different but politically sensitive corner of Pakistan’s economy. Listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX), the company operates in edible oils and staple food products, a sector heavily dependent on imports and working-capital financing. In such markets, liquidity and access to bank facilities often determine operational stability.

How Wilmar entered the picture

Wilmar did not initially take control of Unity. Public disclosures and reporting indicated that Wilmar became a shareholder in 2020, maintaining the position that it did not manage Unity’s day-to-day operations. That structure was typical of strategic minority investments. With capital and industry expertise coming from the foreign investor, operational management from the local partner.

The relationship, however, gradually deepened. In January 2022, Unity’s board approved the allotment of more than 64 million unsubscribed right-issue shares to Wilmar Pakistan Holdings at Rs27 per share, increasing Wilmar’s exposure.

The more consequential shift came two years later, when in March 2024, Wilmar announced through the Singapore Exchange that Wilmar Pakistan Holdings, along with Unity Wilmar Agro (Private) Ltd and other parties, intended to acquire additional shares and joint control of Unity Foods. These other parties, at the time, were none other than Unity Foods CEO and co-founder Farrukh Amin and his wife.

The Competition Commission of Pakistan subsequently approved a transaction involving the acquisition of a 23.20% stake in Unity Foods by these four acquirers. Trade reporting later indicated that Wilmar’s effective shareholding rose further. By mid-2024, Wilmar-linked entities were holding about 42.17% of Unity Foods, equivalent to over 503 million shares.

Up to that point, the strategic rationale still appeared intact, where a global agrifood company deepening its presence in Pakistan’s edible-oil and staples sector through a growing equity position. Till this point, Farrukh Amin and his team of local executives were happily running the management and boardroom.

The financial disclosure that changed the story

The tone of the partnership shifted sharply with Wilmar’s financial disclosure in 2025. In its results announcement, the company recorded a $150 million loss provision tied to its investments in Pakistan. The company later confirmed to Bloomberg that this company was indeed Unity Foods.

According to explanations later reported, Wilmar said it had become aware during 2025 that Unity was experiencing difficulties servicing certain bank facilities.

The development, Wilmar said, came as a surprise because the most recent publicly available financial statements from Unity indicated profitability and reported liquid assets. This meant that either there was intentional financial malpractice or the management was so poor that they missed $150 million dollars. The former is always more likely in such a case. 

Wilmar further stated that information later surfaced suggesting material uncertainties and inconsistencies in financial and working-capital items, and that despite repeated clarification requests, the information remained incomplete or could not be reconciled.

In the language of corporate governance, the statement signaled a breakdown in confidence over financial reporting and internal controls. Wilmar’s provision was therefore not just an accounting entry. It represented a major public indication that the strategic partnership had entered troubled territory.

Leadership changes inside Unity

The rift in the partners is not new. There were signs starting to emerge right around December, and Unity Foods had begun experiencing leadership turbulence.

In December 2025, the company informed the PSX that its founder and long-serving chief executive resigned as CEO, effective December 21, while remaining on the board as a non-executive director. A new chief executive, Amir Shehzad, was appointed to fill the vacancy.

The transition proved short-lived and in February 2026, Unity disclosed that the new CEO had also resigned. Market disclosures and media reporting indicated that he stepped down as director and chairman as well, citing personal commitments. 

The situation got even spookier when the company’s independent directors resigned, leaving the board without quorum. For a listed company, losing independent directors during a shareholder dispute not only signals that something is terribly wrong, but also raises practical governance problems. Board quorum is required for approving financial statements, audit matters, and key corporate decisions. Without it, the company’s formal oversight structure becomes difficult to maintain.

Competing narratives about control

As Wilmar’s concerns circulated publicly, Unity issued a statement that reframed the situation.

The company said that under a Shareholders’ Agreement dated December 21, 2025, between Wilmar International and certain shareholders, Wilmar had assumed management control of Unity Foods with immediate effect.

According to Unity’s account, a Wilmar-approved chief executive and chief financial officer were appointed following the agreement. While the CEO later resigned in February 2026, the CFO continued in the role.

Unity stated that financial management and reporting functions were being administered under Wilmar’s authority under the governance structure established by the agreement.

That explanation diverged from earlier descriptions of Wilmar’s role as a non-operational strategic shareholder.

Instead, it suggested that by late 2025, Wilmar’s position had evolved into one involving direct managerial oversight. Unity also disclosed that disputes between shareholders had moved into the legal arena.

The company informed the PSX that proceedings between certain shareholders were pending before competent courts, and that the matters were sub judice. Till the filing of this report, the company has maintained a tight lipped stance on this whole matter.

According to the official statement, because of the litigation, Unity said it would not provide additional comment. The dispute therefore has shifted beyond corporate governance tensions into a legal process likely to determine the boundaries of control and authority between the company’s key stakeholders.

A formal confirmation of Wilmar’s control

The most recent development arrived on Thursday when in a notice to the Pakistan Stock Exchange, Unity Foods confirmed that Wilmar International has assumed management control of the company under the shareholders’ agreement signed in December 2025. Market commentators believe this to be a step that Wilmar had to take due to prevailing conditions.

“The Company has been informed that Wilmar Group has entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement dated December 21, 2025 with certain shareholders of Unity Foods Limited, pursuant to which it has assumed management control of the Company with immediate effect,” the filing stated.

The disclosure clarified that Wilmar’s control stems from the shareholder agreement rather than any new acquisition or emergency takeover. Unity also reiterated that legal proceedings concerning aspects of the arrangement are currently underway, and therefore the company would refrain from further comment while the matters remain before the courts.

What happens next?

Wilmar’s $150 million loss provision is the most tangible indication of concern. Companies rarely record provisions of that scale unless they believe the value of an investment is materially impaired.

Secondly, Wilmar reportedly sought regulatory guidance about whether an administrator or independent investigation might be required, suggesting it believed internal clarification processes were insufficient.

The dispute has also moved into court proceedings between shareholders, taking the matter beyond boardroom disagreements. The sequence of leadership departures and independent-director resignations has created a pattern of governance instability within the company.

Together, these developments do not inspire investor confidence and also illustrate how strategic partnerships can shift into contested governance situations.

As of now, leadership turnover has occurred, independent directors have resigned, and litigation between shareholders is underway. What the record does not yet show is a definitive conclusion.

No regulator has issued a final determination, and the courts have yet to resolve the disputes between stakeholders. For now, the story of Wilmar and Unity Foods remains unfinished — a strategic investment that began as a straightforward partnership and has since evolved into a complex contest over governance, control, and trust.

This also raises an interesting skeptic reading, with the timing mismatch. According to the written response to Bloomberg’s queries, Wilmar says it became aware during 2025 that Unity was struggling to service certain bank facilities, and that this clashed with published numbers showing profitability and material liquid assets.

If that unease existed before the late-December control shift (Unity’s disclosures point to December 21 agreement and December 23 resolutions), then signing up to take management control looks, at minimum, like an oddly aggressive move for a group already absorbing other big provisions and legal exposures around the world.

One explanation is mundane, that once a minority stake becomes large enough, “doing nothing” can be the riskiest option. Taking control could be Wilmar’s attempt to stop further value leakage, secure direct access to books and bank conversations, stabilise lender relations, and run a rapid clean-up so the investment does not become a total write-off. 

A darker reading flips it. Control could be about narrative and liability, stepping in early to shape what gets documented, who signs what, and how responsibility is framed before a legal fight hardens, leaving the prior sponsor group positioned as scapegoat. 

Both theories can’t be confirmed from public statements alone, and that is why the picture stays grey. Until courts and any independent review establish a timeline of decisions, cash, and disclosures, the market is left watching two powerful parties argue over who inherited a problem and who created it.