AMF France v. X, A, Y and B (misleading forecasts and insider trading, 2009)

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-2009-21-insider-trading-2009) by email

On 5 March 2009 the Commission des sanctions found that a listed company and its management-board chairman had published over-optimistic forecasts in July and September 2006, and that its shareholder Y and Y's representative had sold the stake in December 2006 after learning the company needed an ad hoc mandate. Penalties totalled EUR 180,000.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€180k

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 first section of the Commission des sanctions decided this matter on 5 March 2009, after an investigation opened in March 2007 and notifications of grievances sent on 18 February 2008. The issuer, called X, is the parent of a group listed on Euronext Paris. The respondents were X, A (the chairman of its management board, who wrote its releases), shareholder Y and B.

The first allegation was that on 21 July and 13 September 2006 X and A published inaccurate or misleading forecasts: confirmed consolidated revenue of EUR 124 million, then revenue of EUR 119 million and a profit of about EUR 1 million. The actual figures were revenue of EUR 119.6 million and a loss of EUR 4.8 million. The second was that Y and B used inside information about X's seriously weakened position and the risk of imminent insolvency when selling shares between 6 and 13 December 2006.

The Commission found X already had enough information from its subsidiaries when it issued the releases to know the forecasts were not achievable, and X did not contest the breaches, which it attributed to A as author of the releases. On the second allegation, X's ad hoc representative had approached potential investors on 4 December 2006, including Y's parent, so Y and B held inside information from then. Y had decided in September 2006 to sell its 7.4 per cent holding, but did not stop its sales and reiterated its sell orders, so the breach was established. Y's 58,681 shares were sold for EUR 997,025 at an average price of EUR 16.99, giving an advantage of EUR 146,116 against the price after the 4 January 2007 announcement.

It imposed EUR 15,000 on X, EUR 10,000 on A, EUR 150,000 on Y and EUR 5,000 on B (EUR 180,000 in all), keeping the first two low because of the company's situation.

This record does not show whether the decision was appealed.

This library tags the matter as insider trading (the same decision also sanctions false or misleading information). 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2009-03-05 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.