AMF France v. A, B, C, D, E, F and Intouch Investments (insider dealing, 2012)

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-2012-16-insider-trading-2012) by email

On 28 September 2012 the Commission des sanctions found that a British Telecom finance director passed on news of the planned takeover of NET2S, and that six people and a company then bought NET2S shares before the offer was announced. It fined the seven respondents EUR 6.17 million in total.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€6.2m

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 first section of the Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) decided the case on 28 September 2012. The respondents are anonymised: A, B, C, D, E and F are individuals, and Intouch Investments is a company run by B and C.

NET2S was a French IT services company listed on Euronext Paris. On 10 October 2007, after trading was suspended at EUR 4.45, British Telecom (BT) announced a simplified takeover offer at EUR 5.27 a share, about EUR 68 million in all. The shares rose more than 16 per cent the next day. After spotting atypical purchases before the announcement, the AMF opened an investigation in January 2008. The notifications of grievances, sent in June 2010, alleged that A, BT's finance director and an investment committee member, passed on the plan outside his duties to F and C, and that the others traded on it.

The Commission upheld the grievances against all seven. It found that F bought for herself and her son D, and that C bought for himself, for Intouch and for another company, and passed the information on to B and E. B bought for himself and through a company, and E bought through three companies in Singapore, the Isle of Man and the British Virgin Islands. It took the gains, as it assessed them, as EUR 58,600 for F, EUR 17,447 for D, EUR 454,954 for C, EUR 275,051 for Intouch, about EUR 286,000 for B and EUR 170,512 for E.

It fined C EUR 2 million, A EUR 1.5 million, B EUR 1 million, Intouch EUR 830,000, E EUR 600,000, F EUR 180,000 and D EUR 60,000, EUR 6,170,000 in total, and ordered publication. It stressed that A, though he did not trade himself, was the origin of all the breaches.

This record does not show whether the decision was appealed or the final amounts after any appeal, and it does not show any criminal proceedings; the decision text as read here does not mention any.

This library tags the matter as insider trading. 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.

• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2012-09-28 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.