AUTH/2573/1/13: Ex-employee v Gedeon Richter (FIGO Rome sponsorship) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2573/1/13
Parties	Ex-employee v Gedeon Richter
Issue	Sponsorship of UK health professionals to attend FIGO conference (Rome)
Event dates	7–12 October 2012
Number of UK HCPs sponsored	33
Costs reviewed by Panel	Per-person costs (flight, accommodation, dinners) ranged ~£771 (2 nights) to ~£1,866 (6 nights); hotel ~£196/night; one dinner ~£63 average
Company-reported average cost	£1,402.05 per UK delegate (range £793.69–£1,865.59)
Applicable Code year	2012
Clause(s) considered	19.1
Outcome	No breach of the Code; no breach of Clause 19.1
Complaint received	25 January 2013
Case completed	22 April 2013
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

📋

⌄

An ex-employee complained about the sponsorship of UK health professionals to attend the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) conference in Rome (7–12 October 2012).
The complaint alleged Preglem (a wholly owned subsidiary of Gedeon Richter) invited doctors from across Europe and sponsored a “very large number” of UK clinicians, questioning how this was “certified” at the expense.
The Panel asked Gedeon Richter to respond in relation to Clause 19.1 (meetings, hospitality and sponsorship).
Gedeon Richter UK stated it reviewed and approved the arrangements in line with the Code; travel was economy (mostly budget airlines), accommodation was a business-style 4-star hotel ~40 minutes from the venue, and restaurants were “lower mid-range”.
Gedeon Richter sponsored 33 UK health professionals; average cost per delegate (accommodation, flight, subsistence) was £1,402.05 (range £793.69–£1,865.59 depending on length of stay). Incidental costs were paid by delegates per the invitation letter.

⚖️

⌄

The Panel found the overall costs for travel, accommodation and subsistence were not unacceptable as alleged.
No breach of the Code was ruled.
No breach of Clause 19.1 was ruled.

🔒

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