AUTH/2601/5/13 - Ex-employee v Gedeon Richter

Breach of undertaking

  • Received
    02 May 2013
  • Case number
    AUTH/2601/5/13
  • Applicable Code year
    2012
  • Completed
    06 June 2013
  • Breach Clause(s)
    2, 9.1 and 25
  • Sanctions applied
    Undertaking received
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    August 2013

Case Summary

An ex-employee alleged that a meeting invitation, which was available (22 May) on an events company's website, breached the undertaking given by Gedeon Richter (15 April) in Case AUTH/2580/2/13. When the complaint was submitted the complainant's appeal in Case AUTH/2580/2/13 had yet to be heard.

As the complaint concerned an alleged breach of undertaking it was taken up by the Director as the Authority was responsible for ensuring compliance with undertakings.

The detailed response from Gedeon Richter is given below.

The Panel noted that a form of undertaking and assurance was an important document. Companies had to give an undertaking that the material in question and any similar material, if not already discontinued or no longer in use, would cease forthwith and give an assurance that all possible steps would be taken to avoid similar breaches of the Code in future. It was very important for the reputation of the industry that companies complied with undertakings.

The Panel noted that Gedeon Richter had accepted the ruling of a breach of the Code in Case AUTH/2580/2/13; the company's undertaking was signed on 15 April and it was stated that 6 March was the last date the material was used or appeared. Although the complainant had appealed the Panel's rulings of no breach in that case, the Panel did not understand why Gedeon Richter believed that its undertaking would not be in force until the final ruling was made. There was nothing in any of the correspondence from the PMCPA to give that impression. The guidelines on company procedures relating to the Code referred to material in breach of the Code being 'quickly and entirely withdrawn from use'.

The Panel considered that as the invitation at issue, which was available on the event company's website after Gedeon Richter had given its undertaking, did not include prescribing information, Gedeon Richter had failed to comply with its undertaking given in the previous case. The Panel ruled a breach of the Code. High standards had not been maintained and a further breach of the Code was ruled.

The Panel noted the importance of complying with undertakings and considered that Gedeon Richter's failure to enforce its undertaking brought discredit upon and reduced confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry. A breach of Clause 2 was ruled.