> Giving CEO James Continenza options to buy 2 million shares at prices up to $12, when the stock was trading at $2.62, the day before an announcement that sent the stock up to $21.85, seems (1) generous and (2) well-timed.
Assuming the options grant was coordinated with the loan deal (so we don’t need any innuendo about the suspicious timing), would that be insider trading? Couldn’t a company explicitly give a bonus to an executive as a reward for winning some business? Matt Levine makes a similar point in the article you linked.
==Assuming the options grant was coordinated with the loan deal (so we don’t need any innuendo about the suspicious timing), would that be insider trading?==
We shouldn’t assume that considering the Kodak gave a completely different reason:
“The options were granted to shield Continenza’s overall stake in the company from being diluted by a $100 million convertible bond deal clinched in May 2019 to help Eastman Kodak stay afloat, according to the person’s account.”
