0

Recently the American legacy film company KODK announced a deal with the US government to manufacture generic pharmaceuticals domestically.

This announcement sent the price per share for the company from around $2 on July 27th to $50 on July 29th. A day prior to this major announcement, significant trading activity occurred, leading some to speculate that the company's executives were involved in insider trading. Others have downplayed the seriousness of these accusations and have instead attributed the unusual volume to a bungled press embargo.

These days, the majority of class action lawsuits against KODK seemingly focuses on two particular points.

  1. The CEO Jim Continenza bought 46,737 shares on 6/23/2020 (prior to the drug deal announcement). However, the company has defended this by pointing out that Mr. Continenza regularly makes similarly sized purchases of his company's stock every fiscal quarter + he hasn't sold any of his holdings.

  2. The CEO Jim Continenza was granted options on 6/27/2030 (prior to the drug deal announcement). However, the company has defended this by pointing out that Mr. Continenza was granted these options in order to shield him from potential dilution as a result of a debt-equity swap

From a legal standpoint, how likely is it for KODK to be found guilty of insider trading based on the above two points?

  • 1
    KODK is the stock ticker, Eastman Kodak is the company. – Ron Beyer Aug 27 at 20:02
  • Unless a prosecutor lays charges for insider trading the chance is 0. The lawsuits may make a determination on the balance of probabilities that someone made trades based on insider knowledge without legal justification and to the detriment of the plaintiffs, but a civil lawsuit can't determine criminal guilt. – Ross Ridge Aug 27 at 20:57
  • Could easily go either way. – ohwilleke Aug 27 at 23:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.