The practitioner was trustee in bankruptcy of a debtor who indicated he wished to propose an IVA. A bespoke IVA proposal was prepared by the trustee. The debtor then withdrew the proposal prior to it being circulated to the creditors and went to an alternative provider, proposing an IVA protocol style IVA. The trustee is of the view that the second proposal is materially misleading and not in the interests of creditors. The nominee’s report is deficient and the estimated outcome statement is misleading. What should the IP do?