AUTH/2965/8/17: Anonymous employee complaint about Biogen bonus scheme (No breach on appeal)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2965/8/17
Parties	Anonymous employee v Biogen
Issue	Company culture and bonus scheme; alleged “huge bonuses” and incentives for field-based employees
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	07 August 2017
Case completed	22 March 2018
Panel decision	Breach of Clause 15.7 and Clause 9.1 (based on one year with 50–60% remuneration as bonus); no breach of Clause 2
Appeal	Appeal by respondent (Biogen) successful
Final decision (Appeal Board)	No breach of Clause 15.7; no breach of Clause 9.1; no breach of Clause 2
Key reasoning on appeal	Payment was an outlier due to exceptional circumstances (including inaccurate sales forecast), not sustained/common practice; steps taken to remedy; only one payment made
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 15.7
Sanctions	Not stated
Source	https://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/completed-cases/auth2965817-anonymous-employee-v-biogen

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

📋

⌄

An anonymous, contactable complainant (a current employee) alleged that over five years Biogen field-based employees (including three named individuals) received “huge bonuses” and incentives.
The complainant said the perception was unethical and could look like “buying prescriptions”, and that incentive trips/awards (including tax paid by the company) should be counted as part of total bonus awards linked to product sales.
The PMCPA asked Biogen to respond under Clauses 15.7, 9.1 and 2 (Applicable Code year: 2016).
Biogen argued the complaint was vague, largely outside the Code’s scope, and raised data privacy concerns about disclosing individual remuneration; it said all representatives had fixed salaries and bonus schemes were Code-compliant.
The Panel queried inconsistencies between Biogen’s initial and supplementary explanations of when bonuses were triggered and noted limited supporting material.
The Panel considered that in one year an “exceptional” bonus payment (50–60% of remuneration) was not in line with Clause 15.7 and ruled a breach; it also ruled a breach of Clause 9.1, but no breach of Clause 2.
Biogen appealed, providing further particulars about the exceptional payment (including that it arose from an inaccurate sales forecast for a medicine) and steps taken to adjust the scheme.

⚖️

⌄

Final outcome (Appeal Board): No breach of the Code.
Appeal Board ruled no breach of Clause 15.7 and no breach of Clause 9.1.
Panel’s earlier findings (breach of 15.7 and 9.1) were overturned; no breach of Clause 2 remained unchanged.

🔒

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