Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), now Envigo and subsequently Inotiv, faced significant financial hurdles throughout its controversial history as a contract research organization (CRO) specializing in animal testing. Understanding HLS’s finance requires acknowledging the ethical cloud it operated under, which directly impacted its ability to secure investment and operate profitably. One of the primary financial challenges stemmed from sustained campaigns by animal rights activists. These campaigns targeted not only HLS directly but also its clients, investors, and even service providers. Businesses associated with HLS faced boycotts, demonstrations, and reputational damage, leading many to sever ties. This included major pharmaceutical companies, investment banks, and insurance firms. Losing these partners significantly reduced HLS’s revenue streams and made it difficult to secure financing. The company’s reliance on animal testing made it particularly vulnerable to shifts in public opinion and regulatory changes. Pressure to reduce animal experimentation and develop alternative testing methods forced HLS to invest in new technologies and adapt its business model, adding to its financial burden. Regulatory scrutiny and frequent inspections, often triggered by activist allegations, also incurred substantial compliance costs. HLS attempted various strategies to improve its financial standing. These included cost-cutting measures, such as facility closures and staff reductions. The company also explored diversifying its services beyond animal testing and expanding into new geographic markets. However, these efforts were often hampered by the ongoing reputational damage and difficulties in attracting talent and investment. In 1999, HLS faced a near-collapse after its insurance company refused to renew its policy due to activist pressure. This left the company exposed to potentially crippling lawsuits and highlighted the precariousness of its financial position. Emergency funding was secured, but it underscored the extent to which HLS’s financial viability depended on factors beyond typical market forces. The eventual sale of HLS to Envigo (later acquired by Inotiv) marked a turning point. While the underlying business continued, the change in ownership and rebranding aimed to distance the company from its tarnished past and attract new investors. However, the ethical concerns surrounding animal testing continued to linger, impacting the financial performance of the successor companies. Even after rebranding, negative sentiment and activist scrutiny continued to affect its valuation and access to capital. In essence, HLS’s financial struggles were inextricably linked to the ethical debates surrounding its core business practices, highlighting the financial risks associated with controversial industries and the power of activist campaigns to influence corporate finance. The subsequent challenges faced by Envigo and Inotiv further illustrate this point.