AMF France v. X, Cabinet Y (false or misleading information, 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.
In May 2010 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined a listed company 5,000 euros and its audit firm 15,000 euros for imprecise information in the company's 2007 accounts, including missing impairment tests, and for certifying the accounts without reservation.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2010-16 |
| Date filed | 2010-05-20 |
| Date resolved | 2010-05-20 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Euronext Paris |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | X ; Cabinet Y |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €20k
What is alleged to have happened
The Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF, France) decided the case on 20 May 2010. The respondents were a listed company (X) and one of its two statutory auditors, an audit firm (Y).
The notifications alleged that X had published inaccurate and imprecise information in its consolidated and parent-company accounts for 2007, and that Y, as a certifying auditor, knew or should have known that giving no reservation or justification would present the public with information that could mislead.
The Commission found that the information was imprecise and insufficient on several points. Among them, no impairment tests had been carried out on goodwill for two foreign subsidiaries and no key assumptions or sensitivity had been disclosed, the recognition of all tax losses of two subsidiaries was not justified, and required acquisition disclosures were missing from the notes. It held that Y had contributed to this by certifying without reservation and that sharing audit tasks with a co-auditor did not relieve it of responsibility. It imposed 5,000 euros on X, which it said had quickly come into line, and 15,000 euros on Y.
This record does not show whether any investor was misled in practice, whether the decision was appealed, or the identities of the company and firm, which are anonymised. It is an accounts-disclosure and audit case rather than a trading or price-manipulation case; it is kept because the charges were framed as publication of inaccurate and misleading information.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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.
- Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2010-05-20 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.