Ares Management Sells $235.75 Million in Savers Value Village Stock
Ares Management LLC sold 23,000,000 shares of Savers Value Village, Inc. on August 13, 2026, according to an SEC filing.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 10:22 p.m. ET
Form 4 reports a single transaction on a single day. An insider may file again, and a sale under a pre-arranged plan is one of a scheduled series rather than a decision taken that week.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 8:39 a.m. ET — checked 34 min ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 10:22 p.m. ETFirst report
Ares Management Discloses $235.75 Million Share Sale of Savers Value Village Stock
According to an official SEC Form 4 insider transaction filing, Los Angeles, California-based Ares Management LLC sold 23,000,000 shares of common stock in Bellevue, Washington-based Savers Value Village, Inc. (SVV) on August 13, 2026.
The shares were sold at a price of $10.25 per share, for a total transaction value of $235,750,000. Official SEC records state that the transaction was not executed under a trading plan. Following the sale, Ares Management LLC holds 94,449,188 shares of Savers Value Village stock.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 218 Aug 2026, 12:22current
Removed unsupported sentence about the situation developing and updated price formatting.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 02:22current
First published.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 02:12
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.