AMF France v. X, A, B, C and D (misleading information, 2007)

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.

Report an error in this record (amf-fr-san-2007-18-market-abuse-2007) by email

On 24 May 2007 the AMF Commission des sanctions found that listed group X and its chief executive A had failed to give the public a clear total net debt including large off-balance-sheet commitments and had not written down deferred tax assets in June 2003 accounts, and that X's 30 October 2003 release was misleading. It fined X EUR 750,000 and A EUR 500,000; the two auditors B and C and director D were cleared.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€1.3m

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in EUR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The Commission des sanctions of the AMF decided the matter on 24 May 2007 after a hearing that day. A COB inquiry opened on 18 June 2003, after minority shareholders sought the chief executive's removal, into X's financial information from 2001 and was extended to 2000. Grievances were notified on 29 March 2005 (corrected 11 April 2005) to X, to A (its chairman and chief executive from 1998 to 3 October 2003), to B and C as auditors, and to D as a director who chaired the audit committee.

The notices alleged misleading information about the value of goodwill on a subsidiary, the valuation of deferred tax assets (raised from EUR 107 million to EUR 255 million at end 2001), and the group's debt, cash and environmental-risk cover.

The Commission found three breaches against X and A or X alone. First, X's releases for 2001 to 2003 did not state total net debt including significant off-balance-sheet commitments. Second, a release of 30 October 2003 on the group's new organisation and prospects in custom manufacturing did not reflect concerns over the evolving relationship with a key customer, and was misleading (X only). Third, deferred tax assets were not written down in the accounts at 30 June 2003 published on 25 September 2003. It rejected the goodwill, cash (the EUR 1 billion liquidity claim could include confirmed credit lines) and environmental-risk grievances.

It fined X EUR 750,000 and A EUR 500,000, cleared D, B and C, and ordered publication.

The record is an issuer-disclosure and accounting case rather than a market-manipulation case, and it does not show the price effect. 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

1. 2007-05-24 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.

• AMF decision page
• Decision (PDF, French)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 5, 2026. submit a correction.