AMF France v. A (misleading financial 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.
On 21 November 2007 the Commission des sanctions found that the chief executive of a listed plasma-screen maker had approved consolidated accounts that left out a double transaction on the same asset with companies of his family group, and fined him EUR 10,000. The company's auditors and two other individuals were cleared.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2008-01 |
| Date filed | 2007-11-21 |
| Date resolved | 2007-11-21 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Euronext Paris |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | A |
| 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 first section of the Commission des sanctions decided this matter on 21 November 2007. The company, called X in the decision, designs and sells plasma screens and consumer electronics and was listed in Paris; its shares were suspended from trading in November 2004 and it entered insolvency proceedings in 2006.
The notifications of grievances were sent to A, the founder and chief executive, and to three statutory auditors. They alleged that the 2002 consolidated accounts did not mention a double transaction on a television production unit between the company and other companies of A's family group, that development costs for a plasma-screen project were booked as inventory and intangible assets, and that a March 2004 press release gave an inaccurate picture of the position.
The Commission found the omission of the double transaction from the notes to the 2002 accounts made the published information inaccurate and misleading, and attributed it to A as chief executive at the time. It also found the March 2004 press release and the delay in correcting it were misleading, but did not attribute those to A because he was no longer chief executive when the release was issued. None of the disclosure allegations against the auditors was established.
It fined A EUR 10,000, cleared the three auditors and ordered publication.
This record does not show any trading allegation: the sanction concerns the accuracy of company disclosures only. It does not show whether the decision was appealed.
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
- 2007-11-21 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.