Dear
@ComPharmEngland Chair, CPE Non-Executive Chair, all elected and appointed CPE Representatives,
We, the undersigned, as representatives of independent pharmacy contractors and stakeholders within the community pharmacy sector, are writing to formally request transparency and clarity regarding CPE’s approach to the ongoing funding negotiations with the
@DHSCgovuk (DoH), particularly in light of the pending Economic Review of Community Pharmacy.
Given the critical nature of these discussions and the financial pressures facing pharmacy contractors, it is essential that any agreement reached is fully informed by the Economic Review’s findings.
To ensure full transparency and accountability, we respectfully seek confirmation from CPE on the following key points:
1- That no funding agreement will be signed until the full Economic Review has been released and independently reviewed.
2- That CPE committee members have taken all necessary steps to ensure full compliance with their fiduciary duties.
3- That pharmacy contractors will be given access to key financial modelling before any agreement is finalised.
As fiduciary representatives of pharmacy contractors, CPE has a legal and ethical duty to act in the best interests of those it represents. English case law, including Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1942] and Boardman v Phipps [1967], establishes that fiduciaries must avoid conflicts of interest and ensure transparency in financial decisions. Accepting a deal without disclosing the full financial implications to contractors would raise serious governance concerns.
Furthermore, should CPE agree to an underfunded settlement that fails to reflect the findings of the Economic Review, this could lead to legal action against both CPE as an organisation and individual committee members.
Additionally, we wish to highlight that we are seeking legal advice on the potential for applying for freezing orders (Mareva injunctions) against all individual committee members should a funding deal be accepted that knowingly underfunds the sector. English courts have a clear precedent for freezing personal assets in cases where there is a risk that individuals may attempt to avoid liability (Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975]).
The recent case of Barclays Bank plc v Scott Dylan & Others [2024] demonstrates the serious consequences of breaching fiduciary responsibilities, where individuals faced custodial sentences for violating asset-freezing orders.
We formally request a response to this letter by 06/03/2025, outlining CPE’s position on these critical issues. Given the urgency of this matter, we trust that CPE will act transparently and in the best interests of the contractors it represents.
We as
@IPCNetwork look forward to your response.