Bausch & Lomb

This company appears on PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, USA) 'Companies That Do Test On Animals' list, signifying that they manufacture products that are tested on animals at some stage of development.
Source: PETA (2020)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 16/100 in the Pharmaceuticals category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2021)

In 2021 this company reached a US$1.2 billion settlement with investors who saw the company's stock price plummet from more than $250 a share in 2015 to below $10 two years later. The investors alleged that the securities were artificially inflated due to the concealment of Valeant's "unsustainable and deceptive" price gouging practices wherein Valeant acquired pre-existing drugs, some of them life-saving medicines, and then dramatically raised prices to boost short-term profitability. The settlement is the largest securities class action settlement ever against a US pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Source: RGRD Law (2021)

In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of D-.
Source: CDP (2020)

In 2017 this company agreed to pay $US96.25 million to settle an insider-trading suit over their attempt to buy the pharmaceutical firm and Botox maker Allergan in 2014.
Source: news article (2017)

In 2021 this company agreed to pay US$23 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed it secretly controlled a network of pharmacies, causing health insurance funds to pay out more than they should have. The plaintiffs alleged many of the Valeant drugs had less expensive generic equivalents or near equivalents, and if they had realised that the prescriptions were all coming from one Valeant-controlled pharmacy network, they would have refused to pay for the branded drugs and insisted on substitution of the less expensive generics or other substitutes.
Source: Top Class Actions (2021)