17. The Former Shareholders argue that the result of an earlier FiberTower bankruptcy
proceeding was unfair to them because FiberTower’s spectrum holdings were valued at an artificially low
level.44 They make various arguments related to the bankruptcy proceeding, including that former
shareholders should share in proceeds of the proposed transaction.45
18. The Applicants respond that M&M and CCA do not point to any competitive harm that
might be caused by the proposed transaction.46 The Applicants further respond that the arguments of
M&M and CCA that the FiberTower spectrum should be auctioned are not consistent with Commission
policy, articulated in the Spectrum Frontiers Order, of prioritizing expeditious use of mmW spectrum.47
As to the petitions of the Former Shareholders, the Applicants argue that the Former Shareholders lack
standing because any interests that they may have had in the pre-bankruptcy FiberTower entity were
extinguished in bankruptcy court, but that, to the extent that they have any interests, their allegations raise
private, contractual disputes over which the Commission routinely declines to exercise authority under the
Act.48
1
