AMF France v. X, C, D, E, G and W (insider trading and misleading information, 2008)

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-2008-12-insider-trading-2008) by email

On 28 February 2008 the Commission des sanctions sanctioned a struggling software publisher, its former chairman, two investors who sold shares after being told insolvency was likely, and the firm that ran its 2004 share-warrant issue. Penalties totalled EUR 855,000; a manipulation allegation against one investor and the auditors were cleared.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€855k

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 decided this matter on 28 February 2008, in a bench led by Claude Nocquet, after an investigation opened in December 2004 and notifications of grievances sent on 15 November 2006. The issuer, X, is a software publisher that had been listed on the Nouveau Marché and then Eurolist; it declared insolvency on 2 November 2004 after a capital increase through shares with warrants in the summer of 2004.

The AMF alleged that X and C, its former chairman of the management board, had published inaccurate accounts and misleading statements about the capital increase; that investors D, E and F had traded after being told insolvency was likely; that D had also manipulated the price by a large short sale on 24 September 2004; and that the placing firm W, its chief executive G and its compliance officer H had breached investment-services rules. Two audit firms and their partners were also charged.

The Commission found X and C had misled the market by stating that the issue would remove any doubt on continuity of operations while the cash plan omitted about EUR 2.7 million of unpaid VAT, and by announcing the issue's success on 1 October 2004 as if liquidity problems were settled. It found D sold 1,796,302 shares between 26 October and 1 November 2004 after a meeting where insolvency was described as unavoidable, and E sold his and his children's shares, so insider dealing was established against both. The manipulation allegation against D was rejected as the elements were not met, the allegation against F was rejected for lack of proof of transmission, and the auditors were cleared.

It imposed penalties of EUR 100,000 on X, EUR 100,000 on C, EUR 500,000 on D, EUR 5,000 on E, EUR 50,000 plus a warning on G and EUR 100,000 plus a warning on W (EUR 855,000 in all). W and G were sanctioned for placing securities without authorisation, for putting a client's interest second, and for being unable to justify a sell order.

This record does not show whether any respondent appealed. Names are published as letters.

This library tags the matter as insider trading, misleading issuer disclosure and price manipulation. 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 3 techniques 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.

• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2008-02-28 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.