U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
SEC Seal
Home | Previous Page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


Litigation Release No. 23374 / October 1, 2015

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Saleem Khan et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-02743 (N.D. Cal., filed Jun. 13, 2014)

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on September 28, 2015, the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgement against defendants Ranjan Mendonsa and Ammar Akbari. Mendonsa and Akbari were two of four defendants charged with insider trading in Ross Stores securities based on nonpublic sales information leaked by one of the retailer's employees.

In its complaint, the SEC alleges that defendant Saleem Khan was routinely tipped by his friend, defendant Roshanlal Chaganlal, who was a director in the finance department at Ross headquarters in Dublin, California. Khan allegedly used the confidential information to illegally trade ahead of the company's public release of sales results. Khan also allegedly tipped his work colleagues, Mendonsa and Akbari, so they too could trade in Ross securities. The complaint further alleges that between August 2009 and December 2012, the insider trading ring spearheaded by Khan amassed millions of dollars in illegal profits.

Mendonsa and Akbari agreed to settle the charges against them without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, and they consented to the entry of final judgment. The final judgment against Mendonsa imposes a permanent injunction against future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and orders Mendonsa to pay $614,375 in disgorgement, penalties, and prejudgment interest. The final judgment against Akbari orders him to pay $2,202 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to the SEC.

The SEC's litigation continues against the remaining two defendants, Khan and Chaganlal.

For additional information regarding prior Commission action relating to this case, see Litigation Release No. 23022 (Jun. 13, 2014).



Modified: 10/01/2015