SEC v. Mychal Kendricks and Hamed A. Ettu (insider trading, 2020)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. 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 (sec-kendricks-et-al-hamed-a-ettu-insider-trading-2020) by email

In March 2020 the SEC announced final consent judgments against NFL player Mychal Kendricks and Hamed Ettu for trading on tips from an investment-bank analyst about upcoming mergers. Disgorgement of $1,188,075 and $73,244 was deemed satisfied by criminal forfeiture.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

$1.3m

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$1.3m

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the judgments on March 23, 2020 as litigation release 24776; the court entered them on March 18 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The SEC alleged Kendricks received tips from analyst Damilare Sonoiki and made about $1.2 million, and that Ettu, a family friend of Sonoiki, traded on two acquisitions for about $93,000. Both are permanently enjoined under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and under Section 14(e) and Rule 14e-3.

Kendricks was ordered to pay $1,188,075 and Ettu $73,244 in disgorgement, the latter reduced for a $20,000 debt Sonoiki owed him; both were deemed satisfied by forfeiture in the parallel criminal case. The record earlier named a single defendant, 'Kendricks, et al., Hamed A. Ettu', and showed only Kendricks's figure.

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 release.

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. 2020-03-23 Litigation release published

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEC litigation release

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 3 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.