Bloom Energy Director John T. Chambers Sells $3.75 Million in Common Stock
An SEC Form 4 filing details the sale of 15,000 shares executed under a trading plan on August 13, 2026.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 15, 2026, 10:28 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 15, 2026, 10:28 a.m. ETFirst report
Bloom Energy Director John T. Chambers Files Another Stock Sale, Under Trading Plan
A further insider transaction report for Bloom Energy Corp has been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, recording a sale of common stock by director John T. Chambers. According to the Form 4 insider transaction record, the sale covered 15,000 shares at $250 per share, for $3,750,000, and is dated August 13, 2026.
The filing states the transaction was made under a trading plan. The record also lists 208,333 shares held following the transaction. Chambers is identified in the filing as a director, with an address in San Jose, California; Bloom Energy Corp, which trades under the ticker BE, is also listed in San Jose.
Chambers previously reported a $3.75 million sale of Bloom Energy stock. The filings in hand do not state a combined total across the series of sales, and no cumulative figure is given in the record.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 318 Aug 2026, 12:23current
Updated story formatting and structure while retaining all official SEC filing details.
- Version 217 Aug 2026, 14:19
Updated story structure based on SEC Form 4 official transaction records.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 14:28current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 14:27
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.