I think this is clearly right insofar as it pertains to grant money already “earned” and insofar as it states that the moral bar for philantrophic service providers should be no higher than for other service providers.
However, I think its reasoning may not apply to portions of a grant contract that are presently “unearned.” To extend your examples, I am not convinced the grantee’s obligations are materially different from those of a stadium authority or a plumber. Both are fine to retain monies for services already rendered.
But I am not convinced the stadium authority, for instance, could ethically retain the unearned portion of the contract monies as long as it carried through on its commitment to use the FTX name for the next decade. Like the naming, the further execution of the grant contracts generates no utility for the estate/victims, and there is no super strong reliance argument as there is for completed acts.
That isn’t to say that I think there is an ethical obligation to return any funds that are presently unearned—I think that will depend on facts yet to be discovered.
But I am not convinced the stadium authority, for instance, could ethically retain the unearned portion of the contract monies as long as it carried through on its commitment to use the FTX name for the next decade.
That’s not really how naming rights deals are structured. IANAL, but the sponsor doesn’t pay all the money upfront, but a yearly tranche of money over the terms of a deal (typically 10- 20 years). I doubt Miami will keep collecting now, but I suppose it depends on the contract whether they’ll be owed anything in bankruptcy.
Correct, but it’s likely that the stadium authority received compensation in advance rather than in arrears. E.g., on day 1 it received $10MM which it “earned” through the year by keeping the name on, then gets another $10MM on day 366 which it was to earn from days 366 to 730...
So like some grantees, it has likely received payment that had not been earned at the time of the insolvency.
I think this is clearly right insofar as it pertains to grant money already “earned” and insofar as it states that the moral bar for philantrophic service providers should be no higher than for other service providers.
However, I think its reasoning may not apply to portions of a grant contract that are presently “unearned.” To extend your examples, I am not convinced the grantee’s obligations are materially different from those of a stadium authority or a plumber. Both are fine to retain monies for services already rendered.
But I am not convinced the stadium authority, for instance, could ethically retain the unearned portion of the contract monies as long as it carried through on its commitment to use the FTX name for the next decade. Like the naming, the further execution of the grant contracts generates no utility for the estate/victims, and there is no super strong reliance argument as there is for completed acts.
That isn’t to say that I think there is an ethical obligation to return any funds that are presently unearned—I think that will depend on facts yet to be discovered.
That’s not really how naming rights deals are structured. IANAL, but the sponsor doesn’t pay all the money upfront, but a yearly tranche of money over the terms of a deal (typically 10- 20 years). I doubt Miami will keep collecting now, but I suppose it depends on the contract whether they’ll be owed anything in bankruptcy.
Correct, but it’s likely that the stadium authority received compensation in advance rather than in arrears. E.g., on day 1 it received $10MM which it “earned” through the year by keeping the name on, then gets another $10MM on day 366 which it was to earn from days 366 to 730...
So like some grantees, it has likely received payment that had not been earned at the time of the insolvency.