> Importantly, though, Kodak did not act as though the information had become public That fact isn't important in the slightest. > this is wildly incorrect b

> Importantly, though, Kodak did not act as though the information had become public That fact isn't important in the slightest. > this is wildly incorrect bordering on fraudulent; at worst, it's insider trading. It's wildly incompetent behaviour by Kodak, sure, but at worst it's a Regulation FD violation. (Even that would be a bit surprising.) It's certainly not insider trading based on what is currently known or even what's been reasonably speculated.