Growing a business is challenging, even with the opportunities offered by today’s global marketplace. Expanding your product and service offerings to your customers requires a strategic vision and focused plan, as well as the resources to pull it all together.

Halma, p.l.c., is an international group of technology companies with its headquarters outside of London, England. Halma has worked with Dinsmore for nearly 25 years. In that time, Dinsmore has represented Halma through a multitude of acquisitions, both domestically and abroad, as Halma has grown to become a global leader in health and safety technology.

When the opportunity recently arose to acquire two companies to boost Halma’s Health and Analysis sector, the company again turned to Dinsmore for counsel. The acquisitions of California-based Sensorex, Inc. and Pennsylvania-based Accutome, Inc., offered myriad challenges. As the deals progressed, it appeared Halma would be able to announce the closings of both transactions to the Stock Exchange on the same day.

Our team worked to structure the asset purchase of Sensorex for $37.5 million and the stock purchase of Accutome for an initial payment of $20 million, handling everything from negotiating and drafting the documents to managing the legal due diligence for both transactions. We assisted Halma with the intellectual property, benefits and employment components of each deal and assisted with all details of closing.

On the Accutome deal, we were faced with the unique task of sequentially structuring the deal to comply with tax law related to the acquisition of Accutome’s Dutch subsidiary. Because of the tax implications of acquiring a subsidiary through one Halma affiliate, while acquiring the parent company through another affiliate, we were asked to ensure that the transaction involving the subsidiary was closed before the U.S. transaction was completed. This required that we coordinate compliance with Dutch requirements in real time, in order to complete the transaction prior to opening of the European markets.

Accutome is primarily known for designing diagnostic equipment used to identify eye conditions and for innovative surgical instruments. Sensorex, a manufacturer of electrochemical water sensors, will enable Halma to enhance its water analysis and water quality programs. Assisted by Dinsmore’s counsel, Halma continues to grow and expand its product offerings to clients and position itself as an industry leader.

Growing, nurturing and providing fresh produce is not without challenges, from accounting for the weather to managing transportation to ensuring quality and safety. However, when those challenges cross over into the legal realm, Castellini Group of Companies knows they have a trusted partner in Dinsmore.

“Coordination is very important in our business because we have so many different facets that need to come together for success,” said Bill Schuler, President and CEO of Castellini. “Dinsmore understands that, and they work with us in a number of areas to make sure our business continues to thrive.”

Having started as a small fruits and vegetables supplier more than 100 years ago, Castellini has grown to become one of the largest produce suppliers in the country. Through it all, Schuler says Dinsmore has been by their side, advising on everything from real estate transactions and complex financings to corporate structure and supply chain matters to labor and employment issues. Drawing on a wealth of institutional knowledge, Dinsmore attorneys have provided the targeted counsel and insight Castellini has needed to continue to grow and evolve over the years.

Castellini’s success has been fueled by their motto of “One Source,” as they have become a one-stop-shop for their customers’ complete produce needs. Similarly, Dinsmore has become Castellini’s one source legal adviser and collectively we’ve been able to share success.

This case involved enforcement of noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements against former employees who violated their employment contracts when they solicited numerous clients to switch brokerage companies. We successfully enforced the noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements on behalf of our client, the aggrieved insurance brokerage company, then obtained a favorable monetary settlement for our client.

Representation of 200-year old, $1.6 billion denominational foundation, with wholly-owned trust company on issues pertaining to structure, governance, trust, endowments, charitable gift annuities, mutual funds, registered investment adviser issues, and employment matters

Representation of theological institution and institution’s board on major contract, corporate and senior management issues

We represent one of the nation's largest distributors of fresh produce with respect to affirmative action matters.  We have drafted affirmative action plans to the Company during the previous few years.  In addition, during the last 12 months we have successfully handled an Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") audit.

I represented the Defendant, a health care facility, in an employment suit seeking $450,000 for claims of negligent hiring and wrongful termination.  The case resulted in a zero verdict.

We represented our client, a provider of transportation management services, in multiple discrimination and retaliation lawsuits that have been filed in Atlanta Georgia, Los Angeles California, and Jacksonville Florida.  We have filed motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment which were granted, dismissing all causes of action in our client's favor.

Lira has served as special counsel for amicus curiae, Michigan Manufacturers' Association and National Association of Manufacturers, on employment and employee benefit issues. Representative cases include:

1) Nord v. The Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S. 822 (2003): Employee sued employer-sponsored disability plan alleging that the plan wrongfully denied his claim for benefits by failing to give proper weight to his treating physician's opinion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether ERISA's requirement for a full and fair consideration of the employee's claim included giving deference to the treating physician's opinion. The Court held in favor of the benefit plan and reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, a position advocated by the National Association of Manufacturers' amicus brief.

2) Chambers v. Trettco, 463 Mich. 297, 614 N.W.2d 910 (2000): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging sexual harassment by a supervisory employee. The employer argued that it was not vicariously liable under the Michigan Civil Rights Act, citing key differences in the Michigan statute and Title VII. The Michigan Court of Appeals applied an analysis consistent with Title VII and held the employer liable. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus brief, relying on differences in the text of the state law to hold that the principles stated in the federal civil rights cases did not control.

3) Sniecinski v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 469 Mich. 124, 666 N.W.2d 186 (2002): Employee sued employer under Michigan's Civil Rights Act alleging pregnancy discrimination. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary disposition and the matter was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and reversed and remanded, following position advocated by the Michigan Manufacturers' Association's amicus, with direction to enter a finding of no cause of action as a matter of law.

Lira has also represented appellants in federal and state courts. Representative cases include:

4) Taunt v. General Retirement Sys. of the City of Detroit (In Re: Wilcox), 233 F.3d 899 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 929 (June 2001): Bankruptcy trustee sought access to debtor's retirement benefits on behalf of creditors, and debtor's municipal retirement plan sought to protect the benefits under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). The bankruptcy court held that the plan's anti-assignment provision was not enforceable under § 541(c)(2), and the district court agreed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the anti-assignment provision satisfied § 541(c)(2) and that the benefits could not be reached by creditors.

5) Preston v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48260 (S. Dist. Ohio 2006): Former employee sued his employer and insurance company administrating the employer's disability benefit plan, contending that he was wrongfully denied benefits. The insurer and employer moved for judgment as a matter of law on the basis that ERISA preempted the employee's claims and that the employee failed to state an actionable claim. The court ruled in favor of defendants and granted summary judgment.

6) Prudential Property and Casualty Ins. v. Delfield Co. Group Health Plan, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18708 (Sixth Circuit 1999): Plaintiff insurance carrier sued defendant self-funded employee benefit plan, contending that the employee benefit plan was primarily responsible for medical expenses incurred by its insured in an automobile accident. The employee benefit plan sought to require the insurer to pursue its claim administratively before resorting to litigation. The district court ruled in favor of the benefits plan, but the appeals court reversed on the basis that it was bound to follow a prior panel's ruling and allow litigation, although the concurrence pointed out that the prior ruling was inconsistent with subsequent case law. 

7) Alstork v. AIG Life Ins. Co. et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-4339 (2008): Plaintiff beneficiary of employee's life insurance policy sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid accidental death benefits when employee died following an automobile accident. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of post-accident medical review. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case successfully settled on appeal.

8) Hodges v. American Heritage Life Ins. Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Case No. 08-5777 (2008) (pending): Plaintiff former employee sued defendant employer, employee benefit plan, and insurer, contending that Plaintiff should have been paid disability benefits for chronic condition characterized by subjective complaints of pain. Defendants denied benefits based on the terms of the benefit plan and results of independent medical reviews. The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky upheld denial of benefits, and Plaintiff appealed. Case is pending.

Obtained summary judgment in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio on two plaintiffs' claims for sexual harassment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and obtained favorable settlement through private mediation on plaintiffs' claims for negligent retention and failure to provide unsafe workplace.

Dinsmore & Shohl represented the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in a breach of contract and age discrimination suit filed by two teachers who were dismissed from one of its parochial elementary schools.  The reason for termination given by the school was that the teachers' marriage was canonically invalid and that their co-habitation was contrary to the school's religious mission.  The teachers claimed this reason was a mere pretext for age discrimination, since they were replaced by younger teachers.  Following two separate appeals, the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit was affirmed.

Won summary judgment in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas for promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and gender discrimination.

Complaint filed in Federal District Court alleging claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and spoilation against our client Garden Manor Nursing Home. We were granted summary judgment dismissing all claims.

Lead counsel defending GE against claims by a former female employee, who, after being fired following 18 years of employment, alleged sex discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, Title VII, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The Court granted summary judgment to GE on all claims, finding that § 1981 applied to racial but not sexual discrimination, rejecting the Title VII claim because the plaintiff had not first unsuccessfully pursued her state administrative remedies, and dismissing her claim under the Human Rights Act because she could not submit any evidence contradicting GE’s evidence suggesting poor work performance as the reason for her discharge.