You’ve actually stated one of the main reasons that TROs are issued. One of the required showings by the petitioning party is to demonstrate “imminent” and “irreparable harm.” In this case the imminent is shown by the plan’s policies and planned implementation as well as the fact that there was a date promulgated for commencement. Irreparable harm would be demonstrated by something similar to your scenario – the petitioner would argue that if it goes into effect and the final determination is that it should not have been permitted to go into effect, that monies which should have been rightfully collected are forever lost, absent an otherwise unnecessary affirmative and costly process of collecting on the marginal difference of payments owed.

To more directly answer your question, the court would direct the companies to collect in a manner which is least onerous to both parties (debtor and creditor); likely a long period of increased collections or (IMHO, more likely) extending the payment period to collect the now-again additional amount due.

I agree with you though, I think given the circumstances and gravity to individual debtors in this case the prudent thing is to stay implementation of the program.