Aurora Innovation Director Michelangelo Volpi Disposes of $9.9 Million in Shares
Director Michelangelo Volpi sold 1,420,222 shares of Aurora Innovation, Inc. common stock on August 11, 2026.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 17, 2026, 10:21 a.m. ETFirst report
Aurora Innovation Director Michelangelo Volpi Sells 1420222 Shares
According to an official SEC Form 4 insider transaction filing, Aurora Innovation, Inc. Director Michelangelo Volpi sold 1420222 shares of common stock on 2026-08-11. The shares were sold at a price per share of 6.9937, yielding a total transaction amount of 9932607 USD.
The official record shows that the sale was not executed under a trading plan. Following the sale, Volpi's shares held after the transaction is 0. Aurora Innovation, Inc. is located in PITTSBURGH, PA, and trades under ticker AUR.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 318 Aug 2026, 12:24current
Updated story phrasing for compliance with official reporting requirements.
- Version 217 Aug 2026, 14:21
Structured story into standardized schema and added official source URL.
- Version 117 Aug 2026, 14:21current
First published.
- Version 115 Aug 2026, 15:57
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.