AMF France v. Orgasynth SA, A (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 September 2010 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined a listed chemicals-and-aromas holding company 50,000 euros and its founder-chairman 100,000 euros for misleading press releases and information about its 2007 and 2008 results and for an undisclosed share-sale promise.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2010-20 |
| Date filed | 2010-09-16 |
| Date resolved | 2010-09-16 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Euronext Paris |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Orgasynth SA ; A |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €150k
What is alleged to have happened
The Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF, France) heard the case on 16 September 2010 and decided the same day. The respondents were the listed holding company, published on the AMF's page as Orgasynth SA, and its founder and chairman, M. A. The charges were notified in December 2009 after an inquiry into the company's financial information from 2006.
The company had announced in April 2007 the sale of its fine-chemicals and dyes divisions and a refocus on aromas and perfumes. The notifications alleged that press releases of June and July 2007 implied a mandatory buy-out offer was likely when the company had sought an exemption, that a May 2008 release gave 2007 operating profit of 21.4 million euros without making clear that 20.9 million came from the disposal gain and the remaining business made a loss, and that an October 2008 release claimed improved profitability that in fact came from lower costs. A was also charged under commercial-code rules over a share-transfer promise.
The Commission upheld the charges on the May and October 2008 releases and on missing information about impairment tests, found that they were capable of misleading the public, and also found that A had failed to comply with the commercial-code requirement over a transaction of a little over 1.4 million euros. It imposed 50,000 euros on the company and 100,000 euros on A.
This record does not show whether the share price moved on the releases, whether anyone traded on them, or whether the decision was appealed. The published text anonymises the company as X, though the AMF's page names it.
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
- 2010-09-16 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.