AUTH/1999/5/07: Allergan v Pfizer — hospitality venues at US ophthalmology meeting (no breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/1999/5/07
Parties	Allergan v Pfizer
Issue	Arrangements/hospitality venues for two meetings at AAO 2006 (wax museum; nightclub) allegedly inappropriate for educational meetings involving UK delegates
Location / event	American Academy of Ophthalmology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, USA (9–11 November 2006)
Pfizer entity referenced	Pfizer Inc (US parent of Pfizer Limited)
Pfizer involvement (as stated)	Unrestricted educational grants only; meetings organised independently by an infirmary and a subsidiary of a publishing company
Alleged clauses	Clause 19.1; Clause 9.1
Decision	No breach of Clause 19.1 (each meeting); no breach of Clause 9.1
Complaint received	29 May 2007
Case completed	10 July 2007
Applicable Code year	2006
Appeal	No appeal

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

Allergan complained about arrangements for two meetings during the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting in Las Vegas (9–11 Nov 2006), sponsored by Pfizer Inc (Pfizer Limited’s US parent).
Meeting 1: Symposium “Evaluating Risk, Judging Progression” with associated hospitality at a wax museum.
Meeting 2: “From Theory to Therapy (treatment of AMD)” with associated hospitality at a nightclub (part sponsored by Pfizer Inc).
Allergan alleged the venues were chosen for entertainment value and were not appropriate/conducive to scientific/medical education, particularly given UK delegates attended.
Pfizer stated the meetings were accredited continuing medical education, organised independently by an infirmary and a subsidiary of a publishing company; Pfizer Inc’s role was limited to an unrestricted educational grant and (per US rules) it could not influence content/programme/venue.
Pfizer stated neither Pfizer Limited nor Pfizer Inc invited UK delegates; agendas indicated the meetings were held in the hotel, with post-meeting receptions at the wax museum/nightclub (closed to the public).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 19.1 (in relation to each meeting).
No breach of Clause 9.1.
Panel reasoning: although UK companies can be responsible for overseas affiliates’ acts/omissions within scope of the Code, these meetings were arranged independently and at arm’s length; they were not directed to a UK audience and UK delegates were not invited by Pfizer Limited or Pfizer Inc. Therefore Pfizer Limited was not responsible for the meetings.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access