Orgy,

Bidders in the process did not want the company disclosing their bid
(either their name or the contents) if they were not successful. As the
company was trying to solicit as many bids as possible in the Plan of
Arrangement process, it is not their intention to reveal details about
unsuccessful bids. One of the jobs of the Court appointed Monitor is to
make its own independent recommendation to the Court as to whether the
company is recommending the best bid(s) they could and Grant Thornton
will make that recommendation. 

As for the interests of the majority party (UBS), as you will have seen
from its release, it agreed to the settlement of its lawsuit (a
precondition of Look being able to conclude a deal with Inukshuk)
because it felt that as a shareholder in Look, the Inukshuk deal
represented UBS' best interests. Keep in mind it has agreed to give up a
claim against up to 96 MHz of spectrum for only $4 million, so I am not
sure why you think its interest would have been better served than that
of the minority holders of Look. 

Finally, it is important to keep in mind the context of this
transaction. Look's Board of Directors concluded this was the best
transaction available, knowing that it could not obtain funding to
commercialize its assets on its own and having tried over the last
several years to conclude a transaction for the sale of its assets. 

Regards,

Peter Block