SEC v. Saleem Khan et al. (insider trading, 2015)

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-saleem-khan-et-al-insider-trading-2015) by email

In 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced final judgments against two of four defendants it charged with insider trading in Ross Stores securities on sales information leaked by a company finance director; the case continues against the other two. The release gives combined totals for each settling defendant, not separate disgorgement and penalty figures.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

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 this matter on October 1, 2015 as litigation release 23374. The respondents named are Saleem Khan, Roshanlal Chaganlal, Ranjan Mendonsa and Ammar Akbari (4 individuals, 0 entities). The SEC alleges that Chaganlal, a finance director at Ross Stores, tipped his friend Khan, who traded ahead of the retailer's sales announcements and tipped colleagues Mendonsa and Akbari, in a ring that made millions of dollars between August 2009 and December 2012. On September 28, 2015 the court entered consent judgments against Mendonsa, ordering $614,375 in disgorgement, penalties and prejudgment interest combined, and against Akbari, ordering $2,202 in disgorgement and interest. The litigation continues against Khan and Chaganlal.

Because the release gives each amount as an unsplit total, the money fields on this record are left empty; an earlier version showed Mendonsa's combined total as disgorgement.

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. 2015-10-01 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 2 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.