Roche: hotel bar drinks and dinner around BSH meeting logistics discussion found disproportionate (AUTH/2603/5/13)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2603/5/13
Parties	Anonymous (non-contactable) v Roche Products Limited
Issue	Provision of hospitality (hotel bar drinks and associated subsistence)
Meeting	British Society of Haematology Annual Meeting, Liverpool (15–17 April 2013)
Complaint received	7 May 2013
Case completed	15 July 2013
Applicable Code year	2012
Clauses considered	9.1, 19.1
Breach findings	Clause 19.1 (one instance, Sunday 14 April); no breach of Clause 9.1
Sanctions	Undertaking received; additional sanctions not stated
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 anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged Roche staff were “actively entertaining customers and buying them drinks openly” in a named hotel bar during the British Society of Haematology (BSH) meeting (Liverpool, 15–17 April 2013), including an allegation of activity around 2am.
The PMCPA asked Roche to respond under Clauses 9.1 and 19.1 (Code year 2012).
Roche provided its meetings and hospitality SOP and receipts, and described bar/meal activity across the meeting dates.
Key event: Sunday 14 April (the day before the educational programme began), Roche held an informal logistics discussion in the hotel bar with four health professionals; 13 drinks were purchased for 10 individuals over ~2 hours.
One of those health professionals (a delegate and active BSH member, not sponsored by Roche and not providing a service such as speaking) then joined Roche staff for dinner at a local restaurant; the restaurant bill was £243.27 including £82.80 for wine. The Panel noted inconsistencies/uncertainty in the headcount evidenced by the bill and service charge.
Other bar activity (e.g., Tuesday 16 April early evening drinks and later return to the bar) was assessed in the context of overall subsistence provided and was not found to be out of proportion.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 19.1 in relation to subsistence provided to one health professional on Sunday 14 April (considering the overall level of subsistence that evening).
No breach of Clause 19.1 for subsistence provided to other health professionals.
Consequently, no breach of Clause 9.1.
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