AUTH/3022/2/18 & AUTH/3023/2/18: Health professionals v Servier (alleged Windsor Castle meeting sponsorship) – No breach | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case numbers	AUTH/3022/2/18; AUTH/3023/2/18
Parties	Health professionals v Servier Laboratories Limited
Issue	Alleged sponsorship of a learned society weekend meeting at Windsor Castle
Meeting timing	October 2017 (meeting); sponsorship request initially received November 2016
Complaint received	23 February 2018
Case completed	10 April 2018
Applicable Code year	2016
Clauses considered	2, 9.1, 22.1, 22.2
Decision	No breach
Key evidence	Servier correspondence declining sponsorship due to “high degree of risk”; no company attendance; complainants provided only a sponsorship request form and draft logo artwork, not proof of sponsorship
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

📋

⌄

Two health professionals complained about an October 2017 learned society weekend meeting held within the grounds of Windsor Castle, alleging it was sponsored by Servier.
Complainants described the venue as “luxurious”, questioned why local professional venues were not used, and highlighted that education finished by lunchtime Saturday despite a Friday–Sunday programme (with wording that delegates could “enjoy the rest of their weekend”).
They alleged the arrangement would look like “sleaze” and could bring the industry and health professionals into disrepute.
Complainants provided a sponsorship request form apparently completed with a named Servier contact and artwork showing a logo to be displayed between speakers’ slides.
Servier denied sponsoring any part of the meeting and stated no company personnel attended.
Servier provided correspondence showing it declined sponsorship, stating support at that venue would expose the company “to a high degree of risk”, and also declined a later request to sponsor the dinner.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel found there was no evidence Servier actually sponsored the meeting, and accepted Servier’s evidence that it declined support and did not attend.

🔒

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