Does the Efficient Market Hypothesis explain why Cheaspeake Energy skyrocketed from $25.95 to $77.5 before tumbling to $21 over 3 days?

In this question’s title, I reported the daily highs for CHK for June 5th 2020 ($25.95), 8th, and 9th. CHK had been rumoured to file for Ch 11 bankruptcy since March 2020(?), and it did on June 28. This article and r/stocks purports to explain these swings, but how would the EMH explain, or fail to explain, these swings?

I quote A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing (2019 12 ed), ch 7. If you know the page number, please edit this post!

THE SEMI-STRONG AND STRONG FORMS OF THE EFFICIENT-MARKET HYPOTHESIS (EMH)

The academic community has rendered its judgment. Fundamental analysis
is no better than technical analysis in enabling investors to capture
above-average returns. Nevertheless, given its propensity for
splitting hairs, the academic community soon fell to quarreling over
the precise definition of fundamental information. Some said it was
what is known now; others said it extended to the hereafter. It was at
this point that what began as the strong form of the efficient-market
hypothesis split into two. The “semi-strong” form says that no public
information will help the analyst select undervalued securities. The
argument here is that the structure of market prices already takes
into account any public information that may be contained in balance
sheets, income statements, dividends, and so forth; professional
analyses of these data will be useless. The “strong” form says that
absolutely nothing that is known or even knowable about a company will
benefit the fundamental analyst. According to the strong form of the
theory, not even “inside” information can help the investors.
      The strong form of the EMH is obviously an
overstatement. It does not admit the possibility of gaining from
inside information. Nathan Rothschild made millions in the market when
his carrier pigeons brought him the first news of Wellington’s victory
at Waterloo before other traders were aware of the victory. But today,
the information superhighway carries news far more swiftly than
carrier pigeons. And Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) requires
companies to make prompt public announcements of any material news
items that may affect the price of their stock. Moreover, insiders who
do profit from trading on the basis of nonpublic information are
breaking the law. The Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson summed up the
situation as follows:

If intelligent people are constantly shopping around for good value, selling those stocks they think will turn out to be overvalued and
buying those they expect are now undervalued, the result of this
action by intelligent investors will be to have existing stock prices
already have discounted in them an allowance for their future
prospects. Hence, to the passive investor, who does not himself search
for under- and overvalued situations, there will be presented a
pattern of stock prices that makes one stock about as good or bad a
buy as another. To that passive investor, chance alone would be as
good a method of selection as anything else.

      This is a statement of the EMH—the
efficient-market hypothesis. The “narrow” (weak) form of the EMH says
that technical analysis—looking at past stock prices—cannot help
investors. Prices move from period to period very much like a random
walk. The “broad” (semi-strong and strong) forms state that
fundamental analysis is not helpful either. All that is known
concerning the expected growth of the company’s earnings and
dividends, all of the possible favorable and unfavorable developments
affecting the company that might be studied by the fundamental
analyst, is already reflected in the price of the company’s stock.
Thus, purchasing a fund holding all the stocks in a broad-based index
will produce a portfolio that can be expected to do as well as any
managed by professional security analysts.
      The efficient-market hypothesis does not imply, as some critics have
proclaimed, that stock prices are always correct. In fact, stock
prices are always wrong. What EMH implies is that no one knows for
sure if stock prices are too high or too low. Nor does EMH state that
stock prices move aimlessly and erratically and are insensitive to
changes in fundamental information. On the contrary, the reason prices
move randomly is just the opposite. The market is so efficient—prices
move so quickly when information arises—that no one can buy or sell
fast enough to benefit. And real news develops randomly, that is,
unpredictably. It cannot be predicted by studying either past
technical or fundamental information.