AUTH/2845/5/16: CSL Behring v Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/2845/5/16
Parties	CSL Behring v Swedish Orphan Biovitrum Limited (Sobi)
Issue	Charity ball invitation/publicity; alleged excessive hospitality and disguised promotion
Complaint received	12 May 2016
Case completed	18 August 2016
Applicable Code year	2016
Event details	“Sobi Charity Ball”; £65 ticket including drinks, three-course meal, table wine and entertainment; black tie
Attendance	163 attendees (including Sobi staff); Sobi stated 3–4 might qualify as health professionals; none were prescribers of Sobi products (as far as Sobi was aware)
Charity involvement	Three charities involved; proceeds shared equally; steering committee included Sobi employees and charity representatives
Donation	Sobi donated £5,224.16 to be shared equally between the three charities (to be disclosed under Clause 27.7)
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 12.1, 18.1, 22.1
Decision	No breach
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

📋

⌄

CSL Behring complained about a “Sobi Charity Ball” and a public advertisement/invitation posted on Sobi’s and a charity’s website.
The advert stated a £65 ticket price including arrival drinks, a three-course meal, table wine and entertainment; Sobi contact details were provided for tickets.
Proceeds were stated (in small font) to be distributed equally between three charities (names/logos shown).
CSL Behring argued the invitation did not specify the intended audience (eg, health professionals, patients, patient organisations, families), lacked an agenda, and appeared wholly social with potentially excessive hospitality/entertainment and prizes.
CSL Behring also raised concern that one charity operated in a therapy area where Sobi had medicines in development/commercialisation, creating an impression of disguised promotion.
Sobi said it was a non-promotional corporate fundraising event, open to anyone who bought a ticket; Sobi did not pay for attendees (employees also bought tickets, except two steering committee members).
Sobi stated ~150–163 people attended; only three or four might meet the Code definition of a health professional, none were prescribers of Sobi products, and they attended as guests of charities/other organisations.
Sobi pledged to donate an amount equivalent to 50% of total event costs and donated £5,224.16 to be shared equally between the three charities (to be disclosed under Clause 27.7).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel considered, on balance, the ball was a charitable event open to anyone purchasing a ticket and was not aimed at health professionals, other relevant decision makers, or patient organisations per se.
The Panel did not consider the event promotional, nor the raffle items an inducement, and in the exceptional circumstances ruled no breach.
No breach was ruled for high standards (Clause 9.1) and consequently no breach 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