Market Manipulation. Search

This action was dismissed. The allegations described below were not established. This page is kept online so that the outcome is visible alongside the original filing.

AMF France v. X (insider trading, 2008)

Dismissed

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-2009-04-insider-trading-2008) by email

On 25 September 2008 the Commission des sanctions cleared a dismissed chief executive of insider trading for exercising and selling all his stock options in the week after he was told he would be removed and before the company lowered its forecasts. It found he was not shown to have held that information.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency AMF (France)
Release number SAN-2009-04
Date filed 2008-09-25
Date resolved 2008-09-25
Court Commission des sanctions (AMF, France)
Status dismissed
Asset class equities, options
Venue Euronext Paris
Criminal parallel No
Defendants X (individual)
Techniques Insider trading

What was ordered

Civil penalty
—
Disgorgement
—
Prejudgment interest
—
Total relief
—
Alleged gain
—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

The Commission des sanctions decided this matter on 25 September 2008, after an investigation opened in May 2007 and a notification of grievances to X, the former chief executive of a Paris-listed quality-management software company (called A in the decision). The company announced on 8 March 2007 that he had been dismissed and that its revenue and profit forecasts were cut; its share fell 8.51 per cent that day.

The AMF alleged that X, told on 25 February 2007 by the chairman that the directors would remove him, exercised and sold all his stock options between 26 February and 5 March 2007 while knowing of a downward revision of third-quarter forecasts, in particular a 24 per cent fall in licence sales.

The Commission accepted that the forecast cut was precise, price-sensitive and non-public when he sold. But it found no proof that he held it. Licence sales for a quarter could only be assessed in its last days, so he could not have known of the fall in early March; the 8 March release did not mention a fall in licence sales; the release's drafting had begun in early February without his involvement; and the circumstances of the sales did not by themselves show that only inside information could explain them. It also noted that the question of why he sold at that time had been raised orally at the hearing, not in the notification of grievances.

It cleared X and ordered the decision published anonymously. No financial penalty was imposed.

This record does not show any wrongdoing finding: the charge was rejected.

This library tags the matter as insider trading (alleged conduct; the charge was rejected). 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.

Timeline

  1. 2008-09-25 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.

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

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

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-09-04 Insider Trading $109k settled
CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) CFTC 2026-08-28 Insider Trading $65k judgment
SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading — filed
SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading — filed
SEBI v. Arun Kumar Somani and others (insider trading review, Indian Oil Corporation, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-13 Insider Trading — dismissed
SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Insider Trading $18.7k settled

Record added October 5, 2026. submit a correction.