AMF France v. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, R, EADS NV, Lagardère SCA, Daimler AG (insider trading, 2009)

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-2009-33-insider-trading-2009) by email

In November 2009 the AMF's Commission des sanctions cleared seventeen individuals and three companies, including EADS, Lagardère and Daimler, of charges of trading EADS shares on inside information about Airbus margins and the A380 and A350 programmes, and cleared EADS of charges of misleading the market and of delaying disclosure.

The record

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 of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF, France) heard the case between 23 and 27 November 2009 and decided on 27 November 2009. The notifications of grievances had been sent in April 2008 to seventeen individuals (published as letters) and to the companies EADS NV, Lagardère SCA and Daimler AG.

The notifications alleged that current and former executives sold EADS shares between November 2005 and March 2006, and that Daimler and Lagardère traded in April 2006, while holding inside information about the group's margin and operating-profit objectives in its business plan, about a revision of the A380 delivery schedule and about a sharp rise in A350 development costs. Against EADS itself they alleged misleading statements to the public on 8 March 2006 about a 10 per cent margin objective and its 2006 profit forecast, failure to set up internal measures allowing it to defer disclosure of inside information, and failure to inform the public promptly that the A380 delivery programme could not be met.

The Commission examined each item of information in turn. It found, among other things, that the A350 information was not inside information because the programme in force at the time had a positive net present value and no decision to change it had been taken, and that the misleading-statement charges were not established because the profit range EADS gave was supported by its calculations. It concluded that the breaches were not constituted and put all respondents out of the case, ordering publication of the decision.

No financial penalty or ban was imposed on anyone.

This record does not show whether the decision was appealed, how each of the other information items was treated in the detailed reasoning, or any respondent's individual role beyond the letters used in the decision. The respondents were cleared by the Commission, not found to have acted properly in every respect.

This library tags the matter as insider trading. 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. 2009-11-27 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.