AMF France v. X, A (undisclosed-control-blocks, 2010)

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-2010-10-undisclosed-control-blocks-2010) by email

In February 2010 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined a company 300,000 euros and its chairman 100,000 euros for failing to declare that they and three other companies, acting in concert, had passed the one-third threshold in a listed concession group in 2006. It rejected the charges of misleading disclosure about their intentions.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€400k

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 of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF, France) decided the case on 25 February 2010. The respondents were an investment company, X, and its chairman, M. A.

The notifications alleged that X had not corrected its declared intentions towards a listed group after a shareholder meeting, and had misled the public in a newspaper notice that showed a wish to collaborate with the board while a decision to seek control had already been taken. They also alleged that X, acting in concert with three other companies, had failed to declare the crossing of the one-third threshold of capital and voting rights in 2006. X had built up a large stake in the group from late 2005.

The Commission found the misleading-disclosure charges not established, because it was not sufficiently shown that X had decided to launch a bid before the 2007 meeting. It found the concert charge made out: grave, precise and concordant indications, including a court of appeal's earlier finding about organised collective action by the same group of buyers, showed that X and the three other companies acted together towards a takeover or rapprochement. It held that the undeclared threshold crossing was attributable to X and A, weighed that the conflict had largely ended, and imposed 300,000 euros on X and 100,000 euros on A.

This record does not show whether the three other companies were sanctioned in separate proceedings, whether the decision was appealed, or the identities of the companies, which are anonymised. It is a disclosure case; it does not involve trading on inside information or price manipulation.

This library tags the matter as undisclosed control blocks. 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.

• Undisclosed control blocks — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2010-02-25 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.

• 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.