PNH, Inc. v. Alfa Laval Flow, Inc., 958 N.E.2d 120

PNH, Inc. and Ronald Creatore sued Alfa Laval Flow, Inc. in Ohio state court for abuse of process and tortious interference with a contract arising from misconduct in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Alfa Laval filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against GO&B; a trustee was appointed and an adversary proceeding was filed by Alfa Laval in the bankruptcy court.
Creatore, Sayavich, and Barnitt previously formed USSC to purchase GO&B and later faced confidentiality/noncompetition provisions under a close-corporation agreement with Alfa Laval.
Alfa Laval alleged Creatore diverted assets and confidential design information to start a competing enterprise; GO&B creditors and Alfa Laval pursued bankruptcy remedies.
The state court actions were dismissed/dismissed on the basis that federal bankruptcy law preempts those state-law claims; Seventh District affirmed.
Ohio Supreme Court held that Bankruptcy Code preempts state-law claims for misconduct during bankruptcy proceedings, affirming dismissal of abuse-of-process and tortious-interference claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts state-law abuse-of-process and tortious-interference claims arising from conduct in a bankruptcy proceeding.	PNH and Creatore argue Congress did not intend to occupy the entire field and allow state-law remedies.	Alfa Laval contends the Bankruptcy Code provides the exclusive remedies and preempts state-law claims.	Preempted; state-law claims are precluded by federal bankruptcy law.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (purpose of Congress governs preemption; strict field preemption not presumed)
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, L.L.C., 544 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2005) (statutory preemption requires clear intent; States presumed to have independent sovereignty)
Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1947) (preemption framework; field vs. conflict preemption considerations)
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (clear congressional intent required for preemption; field occupancy discussed)
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 (U.S. 1994) (preemption assumes state-law claims unless Congress intends to preempt)
MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizes comprehensive remedial scheme and federal remedies in bankruptcy)
Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2000) (uniformity concerns and preemption of state-law tort claims arising from bankruptcy)
In re Resorts Internatl., Inc., 372 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2004) (distinguishes core vs. noncore proceedings and bankruptcy jurisdiction)
In re Riverside Nursing Home, 144 B.R. 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (claims arising in bankruptcy contexts not necessarily preempted)
Graber v. Fuqua, 279 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2009) (Texas view: preemption not compelled when remedies exist under state law)