AMF France v. X and A (misleading information, 2006)
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 16 November 2006 the AMF Commission des sanctions found that company X and its chief executive A had published a profit-warning release on 8 April 2005 that was late, vague and misleading, because the board knew by 1 March 2005 that results would miss targets and the release added an unsupported claim of recovery. It fined X EUR 30,000 and A EUR 10,000.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2007-07 |
| Date filed | 2006-11-16 |
| Date resolved | 2006-11-16 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Shares of company X |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | X ; A |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €40k
What is alleged to have happened
The first section of the Commission des sanctions of the AMF decided the matter on 16 November 2006 after a hearing that day. Grievances had been notified on 20 June 2006 to listed company X and its chief executive A, who had just taken up the post.
The notices alleged late publication of inside information about results and an inaccurate, imprecise and misleading release.
The Commission found that the board minutes of 1 March 2005 showed X and A knew results would fall below targets, yet this was published only on 8 April 2005 and without a legitimate reason for delay. It also found that the release, issued after accounts were approved on 7 April, gave no figures and stated that March showed a return to good activity with positive operating profitability expected from the second quarter, with no objective support, which softened the disappointing news and gave an artificially positive picture.
It fined X EUR 30,000 and A EUR 10,000 and ordered publication.
The record does not show any price effect, and the decision does not say whether it was later reformed or annulled on appeal. This is an issuer-disclosure case with no market-manipulation technique; the tag is left empty. 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
- 2006-11-16 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.