Each of the Kodak subsidiaries are independent. They happen to be owned by the bankrupt Eastman Kodak (and therefore must show somewhere as an asset on Eastman Kodak's balance sheet) but as independent entities they bear the brunt of problems in their supply chain, and enjoy the profits that might arise out of that supply chain.
The problem is that Stephen could not have bought that out-dated material from Kodak AU - only from a distributor. That distributor bought it from Kodak AU (or possibly another distributor). Strictly speaking, Kodak AU probably doesn't have any contractual relationship with Stephen's business, and so would not be legally responsible for the distributor's actions.
To approach it that way would however be disastrous for Kodak AU. So they made sure the situation was fixed, but the chain of supply means that problems like this are much more likely to occur.