LEO: Senior employee sought confidential competitor discount information from NHS staff (AUTH/3548/7/21)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3548/7/21
Parties	Complainant v LEO
Issue	Conduct of LEO employees; seeking competitor confidential discount information from NHS staff (plus other allegations not proven)
Product referenced	Kyntheum
Complaint received	14 December 2020
Case completed	13 January 2023
Applicable Code year (case page)	2019
Code applied to upheld allegation	2016 Code (Panel stated it was the relevant Code at the time of the activity)
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1 (2016); Clause 2 (2016)
No breach clauses (as ruled)	Clause 15.2 (2016); Clauses 15.5, 9.1 and 2 (2019) for allegations 2–4
Appeal	Appeal by respondent (LEO) against Clause 2; unsuccessful (Clause 2 upheld)
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement

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

📋

⌄

A complainant alleged unethical conduct by a senior LEO employee (“the Manager”), including coercing staff to obtain competitor intelligence.
Four matters were assessed as within scope of the Code.
Competitor discount information (upheld): LEO confirmed the Manager sought information from an NHS employee (person X) about a competitor product’s discounted price offered to the NHS (at least a price range) to inform LEO’s patient access scheme and NICE submission for Kyntheum.
Clinical Pharmacy Congress 2019 (not proven): Allegation that the complainant was asked to attend using an NHS delegate badge to save money and access restricted areas; Panel found insufficient evidence.
BAD meeting 2019 (not proven): Allegations of pass-sharing and pretending to be NHS to gather competitor insights; Panel found insufficient evidence.
Linking payments to NHS access (not proven): Allegation that prior paid work by an HCP was implied to be linked to their NHS decisions; Panel found insufficient evidence.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found in relation to seeking competitor confidential discount information: Clause 9.1 and Clause 2 of the 2016 Code.
No breach for Clause 15.2 (2016) because it was not established the Manager was a “representative” as defined by the Code.
No breaches ruled for the other three allegations (considered under the 2019 Code): Clauses 15.5, 9.1 and 2 (as applicable) due to lack of evidence.
LEO appealed the Clause 2 ruling; the Appeal Board upheld the breach of Clause 2 (appeal unsuccessful).

🔒

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