Dan Anderson's practice is focused on commercial litigation, corporate reorganization and bankruptcy litigation. He has represented financial institutions, secured and unsecured creditors, preference and fraudulent transfer defendants, and commercial landlords and tenants in all facets of litigation and bankruptcy proceedings. Dan has also represented investors seeking to acquire assets out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

He has also taken a lead role in many difficult and challenging cases, particularly those involving constitutional questions and the rights of cities under Home Rule. For example, Anderson developed the strategy and drafted the briefs that won summary judgment striking down the provisions of H.B. 283 which sought to limit the power of municipalities to regulate their rights of way used by utilities and telecommunications companies. Trial court granted summary judgment to Dublin finding the Right of Way legislation in violation of Dublin’s Home Rule rights and also in violation of the Single Subject Rule in the Ohio Constitution. Case No. 99CVH-08-7007.

More recently, he developed the strategy and drafted the briefs for the City of Bexley and 49 other Ohio municipal corporations in a successful constitutional challenge to Senate Bill 331, enacted in December 2016. Originally known as the “Petland Bill,” SB 331 regulated dog sales from retailers such as Petland. The day SB 331 passed, however, the legislators added numerous other provisions restricting our clients' ability to regulate micro cell installation in their rights of way, prohibiting any political subdivision from adopting its own minimum wage, and prohibiting regulation by local governments over any issues related to work benefits and hours and conditions of work. Ice Miller challenged SB 331 under various provisions of the Ohio Constitution alleging violations of the Home Rule Clause, the Uniformity Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, the Takings Clause and the One-Subject Rule. Since the One-Subject challenge is based upon the text of the bill, we litigated the One-Subject challenge first and reserved the other claims. After briefing and oral argument, Judge Richard Frye ruled that there was no commonality of subject matter among the provisions of the bill, and held that the animal-related provisions were the bill’s primary purpose. Accordingly, the animal-related provisions survived, but the micro wireless, minimum wage, and other employment provisions were struck down as unconstitutional. For more information, see this article. Case No. 17-CV-2672 (Franklin Co. CP).