Well, let's see, that's the thing, Catz does address the issue, but in a way that's at least incomplete. In other things the Q&A tries to be impartial, but in this it's more like, it's "my way or the highway", where you would substitute the current plan with "my way". And that right now is just a belief, not something impartial. It's impresses upon the reader this like it's a fact and that's not cool in my view. What's wrong with adding what I said? Waste of time? It's only like a sentence or two. Like a disclaimer along with the many others in the Q&A.
I know you say that scenario is unlikely, but again isn't that your belief? Shouldn't the Q&A all be based on as many facts as possible, and where there are still unknown possibilities, point them out?
Also, what about where it says there will be another vote only if the class is made worse? That's not a fact, there can be another vote under many other circumstances. Then it says that the plan can be confirmed if one impaired class votes for the plan and that always happened before. True, but this time there is another issue that was not there before, that's absolute priority. Catz doesn't address this at all. The judge even mentioned her skepticism about it in court. An impared class can vote for the plan all they want, if another one votes against and violates absolute priority.
Read this article if you want to understand more about it:
Market Data 
Markets 
