AEHR Test Systems Director Sells 20,000 Shares
Geoffrey Gates Scott sold $2,630,120 worth of common stock on August 12, 2026, according to an official filing.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 18, 2026, 8:23 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 18, 2026, 8:23 a.m. ETFirst report
AEHR Test Systems Director Sells 20,000 Shares
According to an official SEC Form 4 insider transaction filing, Geoffrey Gates Scott, a director of AEHR TEST SYSTEMS (ticker AEHR) of Fremont, California, sold common stock in the company on August 12, 2026.
The filing records that Scott sold 20,000 shares at $131.506 per share, for a total amount of $2,630,120. Following the transaction, Scott held 10,000 shares. Scott's location is listed in the official record as Fremont, California.
The document indicates that the transaction was not executed under a pre-arranged trading plan.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 318 Aug 2026, 12:23current
Published initial JSON report based on official SEC Form 4 filing data.
- Version 217 Aug 2026, 14:20
Corrected insider name to Geoffrey Gates Scott as stated in the official SEC filing and added source citation URL.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 12:24current
First published.
- Version 114 Aug 2026, 21:14
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.