As one of the world’s largest and most trusted companies, Procter & Gamble has no shortage of legal needs. Whether seeking counsel on corporate strategy, navigating real estate transactions or protecting their shareholders’ assets, P&G relies on its legal counsel to keep its business running efficiently. That’s why, for nearly 100 years, the consumer products giant has turned to Dinsmore.

“Dinsmore knows our business and understands our culture,” said Debbie Majoras, Chief Legal Officer for P&G.  “They remain a trusted ally for us because they are committed to our goals, our company’s success and meeting our legal needs. They bring tremendous value, and we enjoy working with them.”

Dinsmore works closely with P&G’s in-house lawyers to provide an array of services, from advising on all manners of contracts and agreements to corporate and securities counseling to handling real estate matters throughout the country. Dinsmore has also represented P&G in a variety of litigation matters over many years, including handling sophisticated product liability, class action, intellectual property and other complex commercial matters.

“Dinsmore is efficient and responsive, and we can count on great partnership and top quality work when we come to them,” said Majoras. “We truly value the special relationship we have built with them."

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a large automobile distributor in class action litigation initiated in Ohio and Kentucky, alleging the automobiles distributed by our client that were subject of a nationwide recall, unintentionally accelerated or were prone to such an alleged defect. The class action plaintiffs alleged a variety of claims, including fraud, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligence, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs also sought compensatory relief in the form of diminished value of the subject vehicles or injunctive relief. Dinsmore & Shohl either successfully removed all such actions to federal court, where they were consolidated in multi-district litigation, or obtained a dismissal of the entire suit.

Via a purported class action complaint, the City of Cold Spring, Kentucky filed a shareholder derivative suit against Kentucky League of Cities, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "KLC") concerning various alleged transactions identified in an audit report prepared by Kentucky State Auditor, Crit Luallen. In addition to the derivative action, Cold Spring also brought a separate class action alleging direct personal injury against KLC and the 27 individually­ named KLC board members, who are all current or former mayors of cities throughout Kentucky, and former executives. Cold Spring, seeking to certify a class of nearly 400 cities and municipalities with an interest in KLC, contends that KLC and its directors and officers breached various fiduciary duties to KLC's member cities, misappropriated corporate funds, wasted corporate assets, and made unauthorized loans to directors and officers. On a joint motion to dismiss filed by KLC and the individual defendants, the Fayette Circuit Court construed the law in KLC's favor, dismissing the class action and derivative suit.

Dinsmore & Shohl defended its clients in federal court against multi-state claims of fraud, consumer protection violations and violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act. Following summary judgment in the clients' favor, the case was argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit before settling favorably for the clients.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a firm accused of conspiring with its competitors to prevent sales representatives from moving between the defendants.  This class action was settled.

We defended a national seller of manufactured housing in state and federal courts against alleged product liability, fraud, and RICO claims based on manufactured housing fire risks. Following successful motion practice, all claims were dismissed.

This is a class action claim brought against our client and its principal, alleging that certain transactions by the clients violated Kentucky deferred deposit statutes and constituted violations of Kentucky usury laws. The parties litigated this matter for a number of years. Portions of the case were appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where we were successful on behalf of our clients in affirming a ruling by the lower district court that certain members of the purported class were ordered to arbitrate their claims rather than litigate them. This ruling was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. Later, the US District Court initially ruled that class certification would be denied, but later reversed itself and certified the class. The plaintiffs were seeking in excess of $40,000,000. The case was settled following the certification of the class.

Plaintiffs brought a class action against the Company and pension plan administrator.  All claims were eventually dismissed on summary judgment, resulting in a complete dismissal of the class action litigation.

This was a nationwide class action.  We served as liaison counsel for seven defendants and worked closely with their out-of-town counsel.  They saved substantial costs on local counsel.  Some defendants settled.  One defendant won summary judgment.  Another defendant was dismissed.

We defended a national insurance company in a putative class action case regarding the application of an insurance premium tax in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky statutes authorize Kentucky cities and counties to impose and collect a tax on insurance premiums. The statute permits insurance companies to collect the tax and keep a portion of the amount they have collected upon remittance of the appropriate amount to the taxing body. The proposed class consisted of all persons or entities in the state who paid a surcharge on their insurance premiums pursuant to a tax imposed by a local government. The proposed class definition contained no time limit as to the claims asserted.

The plaintiffs argued that the insurance premium tax should have been paid by the insurance companies, and not the policyholders. They also alleged that the tax had been miscalculated by the insurance company in some jurisdictions. The plaintiffs sought both declaratory and injunctive relief that the insurance companies be prohibited from collecting the tax from the policyholders. Alternatively, if it was determined that the companies were permitted to collect the tax from policyholders, the plaintiffs sought an accounting to determine if the tax had been properly calculated for each policyholder, with the cost of the accounting to be paid by the insurance companies.

We removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. We also filed a motion to dismiss asserting that under the applicable state statutes the insurance premium tax was properly charged to the policyholders. We also argued that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the appropriate state agency prior to filing suit, as required by state statute. The motion to dismiss was granted.

Lead counsel in defense of Regis in a class action claim alleging that, for a period of five years, it failed to issue final paychecks to former involuntarily discharged employees within 72 hours as required by the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act. At issue are complex questions as to numerosity, commonality and typicality of the claims and defenses of the class, as well as the proper method for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs potentially payable to class counsel. This matter remains in active litigation.

Plaintiffs brought a putative national class action claim involving over 50,000 retirees seeking reinstatement of retirement benefits provided for under CBA’s. Class certification denied and favorable resolution reached.

Dinsmore & Shohl coordinated on a national basis thousands of lawsuits in state and federal courts. We developed and presented complex medical and scientific evidence on emerging issues, involving silicone chemistry, product integrity, immunology and rheumatology.