AMF France v. A, B, C, D (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-2010-02-insider-trading-2009) by email

In October 2009 the AMF's Commission des sanctions cleared four companies of using inside information about a planned significant stake in Eiffage in early 2006, finding that the evidence did not establish the breach.

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) decided the case on 15 October 2009. The charges had been notified to four companies, published as A, B, C and D, in 2008.

In substance the notifications alleged that on different dates in January or February 2006 the four companies used inside information about the intention of another company to take a significant holding in Eiffage, so as to weigh on the group's strategy. They said a set of consistent indicators showed that the companies' purchases of Eiffage shares could only be explained by holding that information.

The Commission put all four companies out of the case (mis hors de cause) and ordered publication of the decision in a form that preserves their anonymity. No penalty was imposed.

This record does not show the Commission's detailed reasoning for the clearance beyond the operative outcome, whether the decision was appealed, or the respondents' identities. A clearance is a finding that the breach was not established, not that nothing improper happened.

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. 2009-10-15 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.