← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Roche: supply of Xenical to private slimming clinics and £55,000 clinic funding proposal

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/2099/2/08 and AUTH/2100/2/08
Case referenceEX-EMPLOYEE and MEDIA/DIRECTOR v ROCHE; Supply of Xenical and support for a slimming clinic
ComplainantFormer Roche employee (AUTH/2099/2/08); Financial Times article taken up as a complaint under the Code (AUTH/2100/2/08)
Respondent/companyRoche Products Limited
Product(s)Xenical (orlistat)
Material/channelSupply/distribution to private slimming/diet clinics; proposed/part-paid clinic purchase sponsorship; Financial Times article (12 February 2008)
Key issuePrescription only medicine effectively supplied via a non-health professional; inadequate verification and lack of action after 2003 visit; clinic funding proposal considered linked to Xenical prescribing and not a permissible medical/educational good or service
Dates (received/completed if stated)AUTH/2099/2/08: Complaint received 19 February 2008; Undertaking received 9 June 2008; ABPI Board consideration 17 June 2008. AUTH/2100/2/08: Proceedings commenced 19 February 2008; Undertaking received 9 June 2008; ABPI Board consideration 17 June 2008. ABPI suspension commenced 14 July 2008.
AppealRoche appealed; jurisdiction challenge rejected; breaches for supply upheld. Roche did not appeal funding-related breaches. Appeal Board also decided case report and FT article should be sent to the GMC once cases completed.
Code year2001 and 2003 Codes applicable (rulings made in relation to 2003 Code using Constitution and Procedure in 2006 Code)
Breaches/clausesBreaches: Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 18.1 (funding). Clause 17 not considered. No breach of Clause 18.1 regarding discounts/terms of trade (excluded).
SanctionsPublic reprimand; reported to ABPI Board with recommendation for suspension; ABPI suspension for six months from 14 July 2008 with re-entry conditional on satisfactory audit; case report and FT article to be sent to GMC once completed.

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • A former Roche employee complained about (1) supply of Xenical (orlistat) to a bogus health professional and (2) Roche funding of a clinic (Case AUTH/2099/2/08).
  • An article in the Financial Times (12 February 2008) raised similar allegations; this was taken up as a complaint under the Code (Case AUTH/2100/2/08).
  • Roche supplied Xenical (a prescription only medicine) to a private slimming clinic arrangement where the clinic owner claimed to be a pharmacist but was not; Roche validated the supervising doctor’s GMC number but did not verify the owner’s professional status.
  • Roche sent an employee to the clinic in May 2003 posing as a new patient; the employee was seen by the owner and obtained a pack of Xenical, raising concerns that a non-doctor was supplying a prescription only medicine to patients.
  • Roche agreed to sponsor the purchase of another diet clinic for £55,000, payable in two parts (£20,000 in August 2004 and £35,000 in January 2005). Roche stated only £20,000 was paid and the second payment was halted after MHRA contact.
  • A Roche internal document headed “Private Clinic Funding Proposal” included sales analysis and described the clinics as a “real Xenical success story”; the Panel considered the proposal focused on increased Xenical use and linked the proposed payment to Xenical becoming the medicine of choice.
  • Roche argued it was a victim of criminal activity and that MHRA had cleared it of wrongdoing; the Panels/Appeal Board stated their role was to assess compliance with the Code, not MHRA’s role.
  • Roche appealed, including arguing the Authority lacked jurisdiction because commercial supply was not “promotion”; the Chairman ruled that on the facts the supply came within the scope of the Code.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Supply of Xenical: breaches were ruled for failure to maintain high standards and for bringing discredit upon the industry; on appeal, the Appeal Board upheld breaches and stated Roche should have strongly suspected by end of May 2003 that prescribing at the clinic was inappropriate and possibly prejudicial to patient safety.
  • Clinic funding: the proposed/part-paid £55,000 sponsorship was ruled a breach of the Code as it was difficult to see how it was a medical/educational good or service enhancing patient care or benefiting the NHS, and it was considered linked to Xenical use; associated breaches for high standards and discredit were also ruled. Roche did not appeal the funding-related breaches.
  • Additional sanctions were considered: the Appeal Board decided Roche would be publicly reprimanded and reported to the ABPI Board of Management with a recommendation for suspension from ABPI membership.
  • The ABPI Board of Management suspended Roche from ABPI membership for six months commencing 14 July 2008, with re-entry conditional upon a satisfactory audit in September.
  • The Appeal Board decided that once the cases were completed, the case report and the FT article should be sent to the GMC due to reservations about the conduct of the doctor named on the account form.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free