← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Merck Serono fertility event: co-chairs’ consultancy contracts not signed before services began (AUTH/3794/7/23)

📅 8 March 2026 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
CaseAUTH/3794/7/23
CompanyMerck Serono
Complaint received06 July 2023
Case completed01 August 2024
Applicable Code year2021
SettingFertility educational meeting/event in London hotel (“London Fertility Chapter”)
People involvedAnonymous complainant; two HCP co-chairs ([HCP 3], [HCP 4]); two other external speakers ([HCP 1], [HCP 2])
Main issueTwo co-chairs’ consultancy agreements not signed/agreed in advance of commencement of services
Panel findingsBreach Clause 24.2 (x2) and Clause 5.1; No breach Clause 2
SanctionsUndertaking received; Additional sanctions: Not stated
AppealNo appeal

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 (describing themselves as a fertility specialist) complained about a Merck Serono fertility educational meeting in London attended by ~60 HCPs.
  • The complainant alleged that “both the main speakers” had refused to sign their speaker SLAs/contracts before the meeting, but the meeting went ahead.
  • Merck Serono said the event took place on 15 June 2023 (not 16 June) and that two HCP co-chairs ([HCP 3] and [HCP 4]) had not signed their consultancy agreements before the event.
  • Contracts for the co-chairs were sent on 13 June 2023. An email from [HCP 3] indicated disappointment at receiving the contract proposal 48 hours before the event and stated the proposed hourly rate and preparation time did not reflect prior discussions or the reality of their contribution.
  • The Panel noted the co-chairs had already performed work before receiving the contracts; the contracts included pre-event services (including “consultancy for materials and debate topics”).
  • Merck Serono revised hours and re-sent contracts on 14 June 2023, but on the day of the event both co-chairs still would not sign, disputing hourly rate and hours worked. The contracts remained in dispute at the time of the response.
  • Other issues mentioned by the complainant (eg, a request for a group photo for social media; perceived stress due to legal/compliance presence; “partner with clinicians” reputational concern) did not result in additional rulings. The Panel stated the complainant had not made an allegation about the photo/social media point and therefore made no ruling on it.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Breach of Clause 5.1 (Failing to maintain high standards).
  • Breach of Clause 24.2 (x2) (Failing to agree a written contract or agreement in advance of the commencement of services) – one breach for each co-chair consultancy agreement.
  • No breach of Clause 2 (Requirement that activities or materials must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry).
  • No appeal.
🔒

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