AMF France v. A, B, C, D, Cabinet X, Cabinet Y (false or misleading information, 2011)

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-2011-07-false-information-2011) by email

In March 2011 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined the supervisory-board chairman of a luxury-yacht builder 100,000 euros and its management-board president 60,000 euros for misleading statements about its order book, revenue and prospects in 2008 and 2009. It cleared the two auditors and their firms.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€160k

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 31 March 2011. The respondents were the builder's management-board president (B), its supervisory-board chairman and de facto head (A), two statutory auditors (C and D) and their firms (X and Y). The company was later put into liquidation, and the AMF inquiry had opened in May 2009.

The notifications alleged that five press releases between 19 March and 17 December 2008 and two financial reports gave inaccurate or misleading information. They said the order book was not properly defined and counted insufficiently secure orders, that revenue and net result were overstated on unreliable orders contrary to IAS 11 and IAS 18, and that a December 2008 release praised the fourth quarter despite financing problems. A was also charged over a January 2009 interview predicting a remarkable 2009. The auditors were charged with certifying the accounts without reservation and failing to check the revenue.

The Commission held the charges against A and B made out. B was the legal representative responsible for accurate disclosure. A reviewed and validated the releases and gave the interview himself, and he held about 80 per cent of the capital. It imposed 100,000 euros on A and 60,000 euros on B. It found none of the charges against the auditors sufficiently made out and put them and their firms out of the case.

This record does not show how the price reacted, whether any investor was harmed beyond what the decision says, whether the decision was appealed, or the identity of the company, which is anonymised. It is a false-information case about accounts and communications rather than trading or price manipulation.

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. 2011-03-31 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.