AUTH/2070/11/07, AUTH/2072/12/07 & AUTH/2073/12/07: Anonymous v Otsuka and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Abilify) – meeting hospitality allegations (No breach) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/2070/11/07; AUTH/2072/12/07; AUTH/2073/12/07
Parties	Anonymous complainants v Otsuka Pharmaceuticals (UK) Ltd and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Product	Abilify (aripiprazole)
Issue	Alleged inappropriate hospitality/meeting arrangements for South Asian Psychiatric Forum meeting
Meeting	“Recent Advances in Management of Schizophrenia” (Birmingham)
Scientific content	6 hours 30 minutes (1.5 hours Friday evening; 5 hours Saturday)
Attendance	69 health professionals attended; plus 5 speakers and a chairperson
Accommodation	39 of 69 delegates stayed overnight on Friday
Spouse/partner attendance	Only spouses who were health professionals and delegates in their own right (five couples)
Hospitality costs (stated)	Friday meal/beverages £36.81 per head; overall cost per head £134.20; total cost £9,259.58
Entertainment	None provided (as stated by companies and accepted by Panel)
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 19.1
Decision	No breach
Complaint received	28 November 2007 (AUTH/2070/11/07); 3 December 2007 (AUTH/2072/12/07; AUTH/2073/12/07)
Case completed	7 January 2008
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

📋

⌄

Anonymous complainants alleged Otsuka (and in related complaints, Otsuka and Bristol-Myers Squibb) provided inappropriate hospitality to psychiatrists at a South Asian Psychiatric Forum weekend meeting in Birmingham.
Allegations included that some psychiatrists stayed with their wives, that 50 hotel rooms were booked, that it was “not a scientific conference”, and that entertainment was paid for by the company.
Complainants also raised concerns about who selected speakers, whether lectures were ABPI-approved, why the event was sponsored, and whether there was a “nexus” between the companies and organisers.
The companies submitted a joint response: the meeting was a scientific meeting (“Recent Advances in Management of Schizophrenia”) with 6 hours 30 minutes of scientific content (1.5 hours Friday evening; 5 hours Saturday), no entertainment, and modest hospitality.
Sponsorship covered speakers’ honoraria, meeting rooms/equipment, meals/beverages, and overnight accommodation as required; 39 of 69 delegates stayed overnight on Friday.
Only spouses who were health professionals and qualified as delegates in their own right attended (five couples). The companies instructed the hotel that uninvited partners were not acceptable and that rooms paid for were single occupancy.
The Panel noted the agendas provided by complainants and companies differed; the complainants were anonymous and non-contactable.

⚖️

⌄

🔒

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