KODK INVESTOR ALERT

Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reminds Investors of the Deadline to File a Lead Plaintiff Motion in a Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Eastman Kodak Company

Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak” or the “Company”) (NYSE: KODK) between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020 (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Kodak Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at [phone] or [e-mail].

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted Defendant Continenza and several other Company insiders millions of dollars’ worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from the DFC to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak’s stock to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this material non-public information, Defendant Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company’s shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became public.

On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the “unusual” 1.75 million option grant to Continenza. The article stated that according to “a person familiar with the arrangement,” the option award “occurred because of an understanding” between Continenza and Kodak’s Board of Directors “that had previously neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public.” Further, “[t]he decision to grant Continenza options was never formalized or made into a binding agreement, which is why it was not disclosed previously.” Concurrently market observers questioned why Kodak, historically a technology company, had been selected for a DPA loan related to pharmaceutical supplies over companies with more experience in the pharmaceutical industry.