AMF France v. A, B, X (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.

Report an error in this record (amf-fr-san-2010-23-false-information-2010) by email

In October 2010 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined a listed aircraft-services company 50,000 euros for waiting until October 2008 to disclose an expected operating loss, and fined its former supervisory-board chairman 20,000 euros for undeclared share sales. It rejected the charge that its listing prospectus was misleading and cleared its chief executive.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€70k

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 21 October 2010. The respondents were a company (X, formerly X'), its management-board president (A) and the chairman of its supervisory board (B).

The notifications alleged that the company, and A as its president, gave incomplete or misleading information in the base document supporting the admission of its shares to trading in July 2007, and that the company delayed telling the market about an anticipated 2008 operating loss. They alleged that B had failed to declare his dealings in the company's shares.

The Commission rejected the prospectus charge, finding that the delay risk about subcontractors was disclosed in the risk section and that alternative suppliers existed. It held the late-disclosure charge made out: the company had spoken of promising prospects in March 2008 and revealed the loss only in October 2008, though it had known of the expected loss by July 2008. It also held that B had sold 293,847 shares between July 2007 and January 2008 without making the required declarations, while accepting that he had acted in good faith. It put A out of the case and imposed 50,000 euros on the company and 20,000 euros on B.

This record does not show whether anyone traded on the undisclosed information, whether the decision was appealed, or the identities of the company and individuals, which are anonymised. The misleading-information charge was not upheld, and the sanctions were for disclosure and reporting breaches, so the record is kept only because the original charge concerned inaccurate prospectus 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

1. 2010-10-21 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.