AMF France v. Christian Guillemot (false or misleading information, 2025)
Settled
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 November 2025 the AMF agreed a settlement with Christian Guillemot, former chief executive of AMA Corporation, over the same 30 July 2021 press release and late disclosure alleged against the company; he agreed to pay EUR 350,000.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2025-11-13 |
| Date resolved | 2025-11-13 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Shares of AMA Corporation PLC |
| Venue | Euronext Growth Paris |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Christian Guillemot |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €350k
What is alleged to have happened
The AMF published an administrative settlement (accord de composition administrative) with Christian Guillemot, dated 13 November 2025. This is not a contested sanctions hearing. The agreement took effect only once the AMF Collège validated it and the Commission des sanctions homologated it; the document gives the signing date but not the homologation date, so the signing date is used here.
Mr Guillemot was chairman and chief executive of AMA Corporation PLC between 23 August 2016 and 29 May 2024. The AMF alleged that the company’s 30 July 2021 press release gave misleading signals and that a missed revenue target was disclosed late; the breaches were attributed to him as well as to the company.
The release stressed 131% half-year revenue growth while omitting the order book, which was far below the usual pace. The missed 2021 target became inside information by 4 October 2021 and reached the market only on 29 October.
He said he never received pay from the company and never sold shares. He agreed to pay EUR 350,000 to the Treasury within fifteen days of homologation. The company’s own settlement is recorded separately.
What the record does not show: the agreement describes conduct that the person "could" or "would" have committed, so it records allegations and undertakings, not a finding of breach, and it is not styled as a fine. It does not show whether any later challenge occurred.
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
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.