Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/06/2013 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: February 10, 2012

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Kodak’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $3.81 per share on January 27, 2011.

On September 23, 2011, Kodak filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing the Company was borrowing $160 million against its credit line for general corporate purposes. On this news, shares of Kodak dropped $0.64, to close at $1.74 per share on September 26, 2011, a decline of nearly 27% on volume of nearly 43 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Kodak’s business model was not working – the Company was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial manner; (b) Kodak’s cash position was much more precarious than defendants’ statements suggested; and (c) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Kodak’s turnaround, revenue growth rates, earnings per share, and the Company’s ability to deliver on its long-term growth model.

Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 19, 2012.

On April 17, 2012, the Court issued an order appointing Mr. Jones as Lead Plaintiff for the Class and the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Holzer Holzer & Fistel LLC as Lead Counsel.

On June 1, 2012, an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants.

On November 8, 2012, an Opinion and Order was issued by the Court granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The following day a judgment was entered echoing the opinion and order officially closing the case.

On January 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion and order amending the previous judgment and allowed the plaintiff to amend their complaint within 15 days of the order.

On January 15, 2013, United States District Court Southern District of New York issued an amendment to the previous judgment that granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint without prejudice. Thereby, granting the filing of a Second Amended Complaint by the plaintiff on or before January 23, 2013.

On January 23, 2013, a Second Amended Complaint was filed by the Lead Plaintiff against the defendants.

On April 25, 2013, an opinion and order by the Court Granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court considered the parties' remaining arguments and found them to be without merit.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Photography
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EK
Company Market: OTC-BB
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-01073
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 02/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/23/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Berens LLP
    303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Dyer & Berens LLP, CO 80203
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 ·
  2. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
    200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  4. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-01073
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 06/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/19/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
    200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date