Practice question
A court confirms a plan after reading creditor comments but the receiver never convened a vote. The debtor calls the comments sufficient and invokes cram-down as a substitute for the voting step. What does BDO v. International Copra establish?
- Comments always replace voting
- Cram-down is an unlimited power
- The voting requirement must be complied with; confirmation cannot bypass it merely because creditors filed comments
- A receiver may conceal the plan
- Only the debtor decides whether voting occurs
Legal references
- RA 10142 (FRIA), Sections 4, 7, 9, 17-18, 31-35, 64-70 and 115-121: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_10142_2010.html
- Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. v. International Copra Export Corporation, G.R. Nos. 218485-86 and 218493-97 et al., April 28, 2021, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67377
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.