← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Anonymous v Lundbeck (and others): Sponsorship of BJMA ‘scientific’ meeting deemed mainly social (AUTH/2617/7/13 and related cases)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numbersAUTH/2617/7/13 (Lundbeck); AUTH/2628/8/13 (Chiesi); AUTH/2629/8/13 (Menarini); AUTH/2631/8/13 (Bayer)
PartiesAnonymous complainant v Lundbeck (and related cases involving Chiesi, Menarini, Bayer)
IssueSponsorship of a meeting
Meeting34th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Bihar Jharkhand Medical Association (BJMA), UK
Location / dateBolton hotel, July 2013
Complainant allegationEvent was more a weekend family/social gathering than educational; concern about company sponsorship and stands promoting products in front of the public
Panel view of contentMain purpose appeared social/cultural; maximum scientific content just over ~3 hours across two days
Promotion to public allegationNot upheld (no breach of Clauses 22.1 and 22.2 ruled; complainant did not discharge burden of proof; Chiesi had no stand)
Applicable Code year2012
Key breaches (Panel)Clause 19.1 (meeting not primarily educational), Clause 9.1 (high standards not maintained), Clause 2 (discredit) for Lundbeck, Menarini, Bayer; Chiesi initially also but appealed
AppealChiesi appealed Clause 19.1 and Clause 2; appeal successful (no breach of Clause 19.1 and no breach of Clause 2)
Dates (Lundbeck)Complaint received 22 July 2013; completed 25 October 2013
Dates (Chiesi)Complaint received 7 August 2013; completed 27 November 2013
Dates (Menarini)Complaint received 7 August 2013; completed 25 October 2013
Dates (Bayer)Complaint received 7 August 2013; completed 25 October 2013
Payments mentionedLundbeck £2,000 stand + 2 speakers (£500 honorarium each); Chiesi £1,000 (stand space invoice; stand not erected); Menarini £1,500 (stand + 2 sessions); Bayer £1,000 stand

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

⌄
  • The BJMA event was presented as an “Annual Scientific Meeting” but the programme and promotional materials also highlighted family/social elements (children’s football, variety performances, “BJMA’s Got Talent”, gala dinner/dance, cultural programme, children’s activities).
  • The Panel concluded the event’s main purpose appeared social/cultural, with a maximum scientific content of just over ~3 hours across two days (noting parallel sessions).
  • Multiple companies supported the event by sponsoring speakers and/or paying for exhibition space:
    • Lundbeck: paid £2,000 for an exhibition stand and sponsored two speakers (honoraria £500 each plus expenses); briefed speakers.
    • Chiesi: paid £1,000 (invoiced as stand space) and sponsored a speaker; decided not to erect a stand shortly before the meeting; briefed speaker; sought repayment of stand fee.
    • Menarini: paid £1,500 for an exhibition stand plus two scientific sessions; chose subject areas and speakers; briefed speakers.
    • Bayer: paid £1,000 for an exhibition stand and sponsored one speaker; briefed speaker and provided slides for use.
  • The programme included a declaration that pharmaceutical companies had not influenced slide content, but the Panel considered companies’ involvement with speakers (briefing, and in Bayer’s case providing slides) was at odds with that declaration.
  • The complainant also alleged promotion to the public via stands; the Panel found the complainant did not substantiate this on the balance of probabilities (and Chiesi did not have a stand).
  • The Panel criticised limited due diligence by companies before agreeing support and said companies should have ensured comprehensive documentation was supplied by organisers.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Lundbeck (AUTH/2617/7/13): Breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1. No breach of Clauses 22.1 and 22.2.
  • Menarini (AUTH/2629/8/13): Breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1. No breach of Clauses 22.1 and 22.2.
  • Bayer (AUTH/2631/8/13): Breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1. No breach of Clauses 22.1 and 22.2.
  • Chiesi (AUTH/2628/8/13):
    • Panel initially ruled breach of Clauses 2, 9.1 and 19.1 (and no breach of 22.1/22.2).
    • On appeal: No breach of Clause 19.1 (on a narrow ground relating to lack of evidence Chiesi provided hospitality) and no breach of Clause 2. The Appeal Board noted Chiesi could have done more diligence but had been “badly let down” by the organiser. (Clause 9.1 was not appealed.)
🔒

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

⭐ Charter Member — Until 31 March

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export. £1,999/year £2,499

Get Charter Access →

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

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

Subscribe Free