AMF France v. A, B, C, D and X (misleading information, 2005)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 5, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the French decision; an independent second reading of 60 of the AMF records agreed on every field for 54 and on the core fields for 59. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
On 29 September 2005 the AMF Commission des sanctions found that listed company X, through its chairman A, had described its main shareholder in two public documents (2001 and 2002) as the European investment vehicle of a North American industrial family when the investments in fact came from A and three colleagues behind a nominee. It fined A EUR 10,000 and X EUR 1, and cleared B, C and D.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2005-20 |
| Date filed | 2005-09-29 |
| Date resolved | 2005-09-29 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Shares of company X |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | A ; B ; C ; D ; X |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €10k
What is alleged to have happened
The second section of the Commission des sanctions of the AMF decided the matter on 29 September 2005. Grievances had been notified on 9 February 2005 to company X and four individuals, A, B, C and D.
The notices alleged misleading public information, under the rule that information must be accurate, precise and honest, and breaches of the prospectus rules, over how the main shareholder was presented in documents issued for a price guarantee in June 2001 and a capital increase in September 2002.
The Commission found that the documents presented the main shareholder as the European investment structure of a private North American industrial family, but that, according to information from the Luxembourg regulator, the economic beneficiaries were A, B, C and D, with a Bahamas-based nominee holding the shares and no family investing. It held the presentation false and capable of changing the market's view of the issuer, even though the information was given voluntarily and corrected from December 2003. A, who signed the sincerity statements and ran financial communication, was responsible, and so was X. It cleared B, C and D, since no role in the communication was shown, and rejected the prospectus charges because the rules then required no disclosure of ultimate ownership.
It found no serious harm or profit, and imposed EUR 10,000 on A and a symbolic EUR 1 on X, with publication.
The record does not show any effect on the share price, and the decision does not say whether it was later reformed or annulled on appeal. The AMF anonymised the respondents.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the decision.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2005-09-29 Commission des sanctions decision
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.