20 years of the AMF: the most emblematic cases of the Sanctions Commission

The opening to the public of the meetings of the Sanctions Commission in 2010 helped to give greater resonance to its sanctions, which can tarnish both the reputation and the finances of the market players identified.

A look back at the emblematic files.

The EADS affair, founder

In 2006, the AMF identified at the beginning of the year numerous transfers of shares concerning EADS shares, notably carried out by managers of the company and its subsidiary, Airbus. In May, the AMF opened an investigation, suspecting several people of having benefited from privileged information.

In June, a thunderclap on the Paris Stock Exchange, Airbus announced further delays in delivery of the giant A380 plane and EADS shares plunged by more than 26%.

In 2008, after two years of investigation, the Authority's final report concluded that 17 executives of EADS and Airbus were responsible. But on December 17, 2009, to everyone's surprise, the Sanctions Commission cleared all those involved.

The following year, a law profoundly reformed the entire AMF prosecution and sanction procedure: the president of the AMF can now appeal a decision of the Commission to the Council of State. sanctions, a possibility which was until then reserved for the parties.

In addition, the ceiling on financial sanctions is increased tenfold.

It is also since this case that to address concerns about the transparency of procedures, the hearings and decisions of the Sanctions Commission have become public.

Another upheaval, since the EADS affair, insider trading cannot be prosecuted by both the AMF and the criminal justice system, according to a decision by the Constitutional Council.

LVMH and its very discreet increase in the capital of Hermès

In 2010, LVMH announced that it held 17% of the capital of Hermès, surprising the market and the stock market authorities for lack of declaration of crossing several regulatory thresholds, although obligatory.

LVMH carried out its operation, in complete discretion, thanks to the conversion of complex financial products into shares.

In 2013, LVMH was ordered to pay a fine of 8 million euros, a record at the time, but a very low amount considering the financial strength of the luxury giant.

Proof of this is that one year after its sanction and after four years of battle between the two giants, LVMH confirmed its withdrawal from Hermès' capital and pocketed a capital gain of... 2,4 billion euros in the process.

“We would like punishments of this kind every day,” quipped the vice-president of LVMH at the time, Pierre Godé, to shareholders during a general meeting in November 2014.

Bloomberg and the fake Vinci press release

November 2016, several media outlets receive a press release which appears to have been sent by the Vinci group, announcing alleged irregularities in the construction group's accounts and the dismissal of its financial director.

In the process, the American financial agency Bloomberg took up these elements, which it quickly corrected, but too late, the false information briefly causing Vinci's shares to fall by more than 18%.

Bloomberg was ordered in 2019 to pay a fine of 5 million euros for disseminating false information, reduced to 3 million euros by the Paris Court of Appeal. This is the largest sanction handed down against a media outlet before the Sanctions Commission.

H2O and its record fine

Asset manager H20 went through an area of ​​strong turbulence from 2019 following an article in the Financial Times questioning the quality of some of the investments offered.

At the heart of the affair: investments in the financial holding company Tennor, linked to the controversial German businessman Lars Windhorst.

H20 was subsequently forced to suspend funds in the summer of 2020 due to doubts about their valuation, depriving savers of the ability to recoup their stake.

In January 2023, the Sanctions Commission, citing serious "breaches" of professional obligations to the detriment of thousands of savers, imposed a record fine of 75 million euros for H2O to which is added 18 million for two of its managers .

Appeals were filed before the Council of State by the company and the two founders.