Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

In re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
129 B.R. 404 (1991)


Orfa Corporation of Philadelphia and two related entities (collectively, Orfa) (defendants) possessed valuable licenses to exploit waste-management technology but entered into bankruptcy proceedings before fully constructing a plant or seeing any profit. EAFC and another creditor of Orfa (collectively, the Proponents) (defendants), both of which were experienced investment brokers, proposed a reorganization plan. Under the plan, Orfa would seek bank financing; if unsuccessful, the Proponents would commence a private placement of preferred stock in Orfa in order to raise the necessary funds to pay off debt and operate the reorganized entity. The amount required for Orfa’s future operations was in the millions of dollars. The reorganized company would be run by a new, much more experienced management team who expressed measured optimism about the venture’s prospects. The Proponents’ plan was objected to by SPNB (plaintiff), which submitted proofs of secured and unsecured claims amounting to $8,072,065.76. Prior to the bankruptcy, SPNB had advanced more than $14 million to Orfa for construction of its plant and had never questioned the viability of Orfa’s technology. The Proponents’ plan was also objected to by unsecured creditor BEC (plaintiff) and licensors of technology to Orfa (plaintiffs). SPNB, BEC, and the licensors argued to the bankruptcy court that the plan was not confirmable because it was not feasible.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (David A. Scholl, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 204,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.