Sanofi-Aventis dinner with oncology team ruled out of proportion (AUTH/2236/6/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2236/6/09
Parties	Pharmacist v Sanofi-Aventis
Issue	Conduct of representatives; hospitality at dinner following/alongside a meeting
Date of dinner	17 June 2008
Complaint received	1 June 2009
Case completed	22 July 2009
Applicable Code year	2008 (Clauses considered from 2006 edition noted in correspondence)
Attendees (as recorded by company)	Two representatives and seven health professionals (one hospital consultant, one GP with a special interest in oncology, five oncology nurses)
Hospitality details	Three-course meal with wine; one liqueur also paid for
Cost	£36.20 per head; £9.83 per head wine (excluding tip); total bill £350 including tax (company split between two reps)
Breaches	Clause 19.1; Clause 15.2
Clause 2	Considered; no breach
Appeal	No appeal
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated

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

📋

⌄

A pharmacist complained that a Sanofi-Aventis representative took members of a local oncology team to dinner at a restaurant on 17 June 2008; those involved told the complainant the evening was purely social.
A sales/educational event had been held earlier in the day; it later became clear that two representatives were involved in the evening meeting/dinner.
The representatives’ meeting logs were inconsistent (different start times, descriptions, duration and venue details), and no formal agenda was produced.
Sanofi-Aventis said the meeting started at the oncology centre at 6pm and continued at a restaurant until about 10pm; presentations were said to cover early breast cancer and prostate cancer, with non-product discussion at the restaurant.
The complainant disputed that there were no on-site catering facilities and disputed that the dinner was an extension of the meeting.
Hospitality provided: a three-course meal with wine; cost per head £36.20, including £9.83 wine (excluding tip); one liqueur was also paid for.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 19.1 ruled: hospitality was not limited to subsistence only and was out of proportion to the occasion.
Breach of Clause 15.2 ruled: representatives did not maintain a high standard of ethical conduct.
No breach of Clause 2: the Panel did not consider the matter warranted the particular censure of Clause 2.
No appeal.

🔒

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