Scenarios

Question 1

A client wants to speak to a pharma executive still employed at a company under investigation. How would you assess the experts eligibility, what questions would you ask and would you approve the interaction?

Answer 1

• How would I assess this expert’s eligibility?
  I would begin by conducting a thorough review of the expert’s current role, access to non-public information and involvement if any, in the investigation. I would cross-reference this information using AlphaGraph, public records and internal notes to understand if the expert holds a material non-public role or sits in a decision making or sensitive function. I would also assess whether the company’s investigation is publicly known, and whether the expert is named or implicated.
• What questions would you ask during the vetting process?
  Questions I would ask in the vetting process would be whether they are involved and aware of any internal investigation processes, whether they have access to any material non-public information, and whether they have received any company guidance about external engagements
• Would you approve the interaction? Why or why not?
  Most likely, no, I would block or delay the interaction unless the expert can credibly demonstrate a lack of involvement in the investigation, no access to material non-public information. If not, the risk of breach is too high and the interaction would not align with Alphasights’ compliance standards.

Question 2

monitoring a call and the expert starts drifting toward sharing proprietary product development details

Answer 2

• What should you do immediately?
  Intervene immediately, using the call monitoring tools by either sending a real time compliance intervention message or pausing or terminating the call if the risk of exposure is imminent.
• What would be the follow up steps (e.g. documentation, escalation)
  Document the incident- the detail of the call, timestamp the breach, the nature of the sensitive information and your intervention
  Escalate internally to the client protection team
  Notify the client- providing a clear summary of the situation and reassuring them of AS’s prompt response
  Evaluate the eligibility of the expert moving forwards

Question 3

a client challenges your decision to block a preferred expert

Answer 3

• How do you maintain the relationship while standing firm on compliance grounds
  I would remain empathetic but firm, demonstrating that compliance decisions are made to protect the client’s long-term interests. I would focus on partnership and risk mitigation and offer alternative experts.
• What language would you use to reassure the client
  ‘our top priority is ensuring that your team can access insights confidently and safely and, in this case, the risk profile falls outside of what we believe is acceptable under our client protection standards. We’d be more than happy to identify alternatives who are comparable.’