Vuletini - You might ask the attorney if we have a case that could be brought before the Federal Trade Commission on the basis of "Unfair Trade Practices" or "Unfair Competition".
For example, a company or several companies stop being customers of a business forcing harm on a business in effect to obtain that business eventually. This might be collusion to force sale or arrange transfer of assets, such as spectrum. This could be an unfair business practice planned to span a period of time in order to gain an unfair advantage, by then assisting the damaged business to retain assets so that those same assets can be forced to be sold and transferred to a company that was previously in the position of being a customer, unfairly harming shareholders and public consumers by actions that ultimately turn the customer into being the owner along with the previous management owners of the harmed business.
Since modern large companies plan their business moves often years in advance to achieve certain outcomes, that can also be a strategy to apply 'unfair business practices' to achieve the false appearance of a defense called 'fraud by hindsight' as a means to have any claims in court be dismissed should plaintiffs sue. By using that tactic a company using unfair business practices might stop a plaintiff lawyers from being granted 'discovery rights' in bringing a 'fraud' lawsuit.
The 'fraud by hindsight' defense was mainly promoted by Wall Street following the 2008 real estate collapse and market damage by lobbying congress to pass laws making it more difficult for plaintiffs to file 'fraud' lawsuits. (Search 'fraud by hindsight' that term or in the news if you don't yet understand it.)
However, IMO, there is nothing in 'hindsight' that should prevent or hamper a case for recovery and damages in Antitrust Laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive business practices. Even though bankruptcy Judge Lynn looked at the situation from one point of view, and I think failed to notice that the issue was not just the financial restructuring, the facts clearly now show that the customer now became the owner through a chain of business actions and decisions taken together, that not only by coincidence, harmed shareholders and consumers amounting to a basis for complaint of 'UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES'/ 'UNFAIR COMPETITION'.
If AT&T and/or Fibertower continue much longer to evade previous shareholders and ignore making a settlement then tack on paying damages at some point. This is not going to go away, that is the message that any monitor here should pass along, soon.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
