Universities, museums and other charities that find themselves saddled with names that have become sullied must choose among a few bad options.
Making them pay is important but it’s not going to stop drugmakers from endangering public health.
After battling drug manufacturers and distributors in court for years, local and state governments are about to receive a windfall that could expand access to treatments that can save lives.
The multibillion-dollar settlement will trigger the release of troves of documents that may shine new light on what caused the opioid crisis.
The government has tried to harness profit-driven drugmaking to serve public health before. The results were underwhelming.
Giving away big sums of money is supposed to make the world a better place. So, why are so many deep-pocketed donors getting themselves and the causes they support in trouble?
The government has tried to harness a profit-driven drug industry to serve public health before.
Some parents were recently charged with paying bribes for their children’s admission to top colleges. Religious thought can help us understand what drives such greed and also provide ethical guidance.
Charity law is quite strict when it comes to giving back donations that have already been made.
The $270 million settlement may not mean a whole lot if Purdue files for bankruptcy as it’s reportedly considering.
There are limits to what charities can do now about past donors who are accused of morally reprehensible behavior.
OxyContin maker Purdue has reportedly been mulling a bankruptcy filling, just as the first of around 2,000 lawsuits against it prepares to go to trial.
After scandals or sea changes make the association with certain names too awkward, universities, museums and other nonprofits usually distance themselves. But not always.
Offering money as a form of atonement is easier for the movie mogul than finding someone who will accept it.