← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Chiesi: BJMA ‘Annual Scientific Meeting’ sponsorship raised concerns over social focus and due diligence (AUTH/2628/8/13)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
Case numberAUTH/2628/8/13
PartiesAnonymous v Chiesi
IssueMeeting sponsorship (BJMA annual scientific meeting, alleged primarily social/family event)
Meeting34th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Bihar Jharkhand Medical Association (BJMA), UK
Location / dateBolton hotel, July 2013
Applicable Code year2012
Complaint received7 August 2013
Completed27 November 2013
Chiesi involvementPaid £1,000 (invoiced as stand space); provided a speaker; decided not to erect a stand; briefed speaker and approved slides; one representative attended Sunday morning only
Final rulingNo breach of Clauses 2, 19.1, 22.1, 22.2; breach of Clause 9.1
SanctionsUndertaking received

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

⌄
  • An anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged the BJMA UK annual meeting (Bolton, July 2013) was more of a weekend family/social gathering than an educational meeting, citing children’s activities and entertainment (eg children’s football, “BJMA’s Got Talent”) alongside limited scientific sessions.
  • The complaint initially named Lundbeck; the PMCPA then also investigated other sponsors listed on an agenda provided to Lundbeck, including Chiesi.
  • Chiesi paid £1,000 (invoiced as “stand space”) and provided a speaker for a session (“New concepts in asthma management”).
  • Chiesi said it sought written reassurance from organisers that its funding was for appropriate scientific-session costs (room hire/AV/projection/catering for delegates attending the Sunday scientific session).
  • A few days before the meeting, Chiesi decided not to erect an exhibition stand due to lack of clarity about stand location and because the requested declarations on the programme did not specifically mention the stand.
  • Chiesi briefed the speaker and reviewed/approved the slide deck via its internal process; one Chiesi sales representative attended on Sunday morning to accompany the speaker and left before lunch.
  • The Panel considered the overall meeting appeared mainly social/cultural, with a maximum scientific content of just over three and a half hours (parallel sessions considered), and noted inconsistencies across versions of the agenda and limited information provided to companies by organisers.
  • Allegations of promotion to the public were not upheld; for Chiesi specifically, the Panel noted it did not have an exhibition stand, so Clauses 22.1 and 22.2 could not be breached on those facts.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Panel ruling (initial): Breach of Clause 19.1, Clause 9.1 and Clause 2. No breach of Clauses 22.1 and 22.2.
  • Appeal (Chiesi): Successful on Clause 19.1 and Clause 2 (no breach). Clause 9.1 breach remained.
  • Final case record (Applicable Code year 2012): No breach of Clauses 2, 19.1, 22.1 and 22.2; Breach of Clause 9.1.
🔒

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