I think the Kodak VP of Entertainment Imaging will find out about the end of film when she gets a pink slip. Until then, her job is to sell. sell, sell.
That was a rhetorical question. It has been asked and answered out there in the business world. According to one supplier, Kodak apparently did not pay the full bill for the printer ink it purchased, but EK denies this. What is real and what is not is known only by the parties concerned. Thus my rhetorical question.
It was my understanding that the ink provider decided not to give credit to Kodak anymore given the financial circumstances of the firm. Normally a provider delivers the good and is paid at 3 months, 6 months or so. When a client is rumoured to swim in troubled waters, providers fear to deliver the goods only to then remain locked in a bankruptcy, so they begin asking to be paid upfront. One has to infer that Kodak refused to pay upfront, and the provider stopped providing the ink.
When one provider asks to be paid upfront, it goes without saying that all other providers will ask to be paid upfront. That will increase working capital requirements and will make a financial problem bigger.
It is reasonable to assume that if Kodak had enough working capital to pay all providers upfront, they would have paid the ink provider upfront and would have avoided the bad press and the panic surrounding its viability as a firm.
So Ron's question is quite valid, Kodak is in the condition of being unable to convince its providers that they will be duly paid, and that's normally just one step away from being bankrupt.