AMF France v. Company X and A (misleading prospectus information, 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.
On 3 July 2012 the Commission des sanctions found that a listed company and its chief executive failed to tell investors, during a EUR 9 million capital increase, about a tax reassessment proposal of about EUR 8.2 million received the day before subscription opened. It fined the company EUR 10,000 and the chief executive EUR 1,000.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2012-09 |
| Date filed | 2012-07-03 |
| Date resolved | 2012-07-03 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | New shares in a rights issue by company X |
| Venue | Euronext Paris |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Company X ; A |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €11k
What is alleged to have happened
The second section of the Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) decided the case on 3 July 2012. The decision is anonymised: the listed company appears as X and its chief executive as A.
The company announced on 23 December 2009 a EUR 9 million capital increase by issuing 6.5 million new shares at EUR 1.41, with a prospectus approved by the AMF on 22 December. On 23 December it received a tax reassessment proposal of about EUR 8.2 million for earlier years. A supplement to the prospectus on 11 January 2010 dealt with a pledge over the parent's holding but did not mention the proposal, which the company disclosed only in its half-year report of 16 March 2010. The AMF opened an investigation in March 2010.
The notifications of grievances, sent in April 2011, alleged that by not informing the public during the subscription period the company let inaccurate prospectus information stand and misled investors. The Commission found the breach made out against the company and against A, who had signed the supplement with a statement that it contained no material omission although he had received the notice on 23 and 24 December 2009. It applied the rules on prospectuses and the prohibition on communicating misleading information.
It imposed fines of EUR 10,000 on the company and EUR 1,000 on A, a total of EUR 11,000, and the low amounts reflect the company's finances, the short time between receipt of the notice and the subscription period, and the uncertain size of the tax effect. It ordered publication without naming the respondents.
This record does not show whether the decision was appealed or how many investors subscribed in reliance on the prospectus. It is a disclosure case rather than manipulation, so no technique is tagged.
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
- 2012-07-03 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.