AMF France v. X and D (false or misleading information, 2018)

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-2018-06-false-rumors-2018) by email

On 7 May 2018 the Commission des sanctions found that an anonymised listed company and its chief executive gave misleading information in a share-offer prospectus and a press release, and delayed disclosing that revenue targets would be missed. It fined the company EUR 400,000 and the executive EUR 150,000, the latter also for withholding emails from investigators.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€550k

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 (second section) decided the case on 7 May 2018. The AMF had opened its inquiry in December 2014 into the financial information of a company anonymised as X, and notifications of grievances were sent to the company and to D, its chairman and chief executive at the time, in March 2017.

The notifications alleged four failings by X and D: not stating in the offering note that part of the proceeds, about EUR 7 million, would settle overdue supplier debts; not disclosing promptly, from 6 December 2013, that the group would miss its pro forma revenue target of EUR 75 million at 31 March 2014; a press release of 29 January 2014 that did not explain that its new EUR 65 million forecast rested on a different scope from the original target; and not disclosing promptly, from 3 April 2014, that it would miss its EUR 150 million revenue and 10 per cent margin targets for March 2016. D was also accused of failing to hand over many emails requested by investigators.

The Commission found all of them made out. It held the offering note's account of the use of proceeds was inaccurate and misleading, that the company should have disclosed the missed targets as soon as possible, that the press release gave misleading information because the new forecast included a company that the original target had not, and that D, as chief executive, was answerable for these failings. It also found that D had refused investigators access to emails, notably by handing over an incomplete copy.

It fined X EUR 400,000 and D EUR 150,000, and ordered publication on the AMF website for five years in non-anonymised form.

This record does not show whether the company's share price moved with the corrections, and it does not show whether the decision was appealed.

This library tags the matter as false rumors (the nearest tag for misleading corporate information). 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2018-05-07 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.