Amneal Pharmaceuticals Executive Vice President Sells $2,563,517 in Common Stock
Nikita Shah sold 146,403 shares of Amneal Pharmaceuticals stock on August 12, 2026.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 10:22 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 10:22 a.m. ETFirst report
Amneal Pharmaceuticals Executive Vice President Nikita Shah Sells Common Stock
According to a Form 4 insider transaction filing with the SEC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AMRX) Executive Vice President Nikita Shah sold 146,403 shares of common stock on August 12, 2026. The sale was executed at $17.51 per share, for a total transaction value of $2,563,517. Official records state the sale was not made under a trading plan. Both the company and the insider are located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Following the transaction, Shah directly holds 253,390 shares in the company.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 318 Aug 2026, 12:24current
Updated story with official source citation, dollar signs on share prices and transaction totals, and insider location details.
- Version 217 Aug 2026, 14:20
Corrected insider name order to Nikita Shah and updated numerical formatting to match official filing values.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 14:22current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 16:29
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.