That's what "Rollei" does with film which is produced by Agfa (that's not AgfaPhoto, but "real" film producer Agfa). Agfa makes the manufacturing, and "Rollei" conducts the "business", which is all operations beyond manufacturing.
On a smaller scale, that's what AgfaPhoto does. Fujifilm makes the film and AgfaPhoto operates the business.
On another and larger example, that's what Vivitar always did. They never manufactured anything. They only conducted the "business". Another example is Hama and there are many others.
The problem here is to find somebody who thinks film as a business can be operated profitably.
Kodak as a film manufacturer is not on death's door IF film remains profitable as it is at the moment.
Even if the company does not exit from Chapter 11 and goes into full-fledged bankruptcy procedures (Chapter 7) IF film production remains profitable and maintains a profitable "outlook" then the creditors will acquire the property of the entire assets of Kodak and will sell film production to somebody (the obvious assumption being that where there is a profit there is a buyer).
When a company goes bankrupt what goes lost is risk capital (shareholder's money). In the US case maybe other stakeholders lose money (employees having some health insurance or so).
Brand and manufacture, if profitable, can survive no problem. I can cite Cirio, Parmalat and Alitalia as recent cases in Italy (Alitalia being a bit more complicated).
"Bankruptcy" means that creditors take the barn and sell it (or its saleable parts) to recover their money. Doesn't mean that the barn is shut down.
IF film production is profitable and if it maintains a profitable "perspective" it is certain that it will survive even if Kodak does not emerge from Chapter 11.
Seen from a film consumer standpoint the problem is not whether Kodak exits Chapter 11 successfully (which is irrelevant). The problem is whether film production is profitable and if an investor thinks that it is going to remain profitable in the long run.