 |
Winston Client Acquitted in Night-Goggle Fraud Case
Newcon International Ltd.
Winston & Strawn defended Newcon International against wire fraud and money laundering charges stemming from allegations that it defrauded the U.S. Army in night vision goggle sales. The court decided in Newcon's favor, taking issue with several elements of the government's indictment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Bank Wage and Hour
We defeated class certification of a case alleging all in store branch managers were misclassified and successfully resolved the named plaintiffs’ individual claim for nuisance value on the eve of trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HealthSouth Securities Class Action
Ernst & Young
In this securities class action, stockholders and bondholders of HealthSouth Corporation brought claims against Ernst & Young under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act. E&Y was the independent auditor for HealthSouth, whose former officers pled guilty to artificially inflating HealthSouth's income statement and balance sheet by several billion dollars. The plaintiffs claimed E&Y's audit opinion letters to HealthSouth's board of directors, which were included in HealthSouth's Form 10Ks, were materially false or misleading. From the perspective of the auditor-defendant, the securities case was complicated by two additional facts. First, HealthSouth has publicly stated that the financial statements audited by
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beef Products Inc. et al. v. American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. et al.
Beef Products Inc. and BPI Technologies
Winston & Strawn represents Beef Products, Inc., BPI Technology, Inc., and Freezing Machines, Inc. (collectively “BPI”) in a defamation and tortious interference lawsuit against ABC News and others pending in South Dakota. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made nearly 200 false and defamatory statements regarding BPI and its product, lean finely textured beef, during a series of broadcasts and reports in March and April 2012. BPI is seeking actual, compensatory, and statutory damages in excess of $1.2 billion, as well as punitive damages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas G. Ong v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Inc.
Goldman Sachs & Co.
We successfully represented Bear Stearns & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA), LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a purported securities class action arising from three 2002 debt offerings by Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp. (SRAC) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged violations of Section 10b of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against SRAC, its parent, Sears Roebuck & Company, various officers and directors of those companies and the respective lead underwriters of the debt offerings. We successfully moved to dismiss the Section 11 and 12 claims against three of our clients in th
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winston Defeats TransCanada Pipelines on Appeal
National Energy & Gas Transmission
Winston & Strawn represented USGen New England in a breach of contract action triggered by USGen’s decision to terminate its natural gas transportation contract with TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific-Atlanta (a Cisco Company) Securities Litigation
Scientific Atlanta, a Cisco Company
Winston & Strawn scored a major victory for Cisco Systems, Inc. in a securities class action filed in the Northern District of Georgia. The case involved Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., one of the largest cable suppliers in the world, which Cisco acquired in 2006. Plaintiffs, who represented a class of purchasers of Scientific-Atlanta stock during the period from January 18, 2001 to August 16, 2001, sued Scientific-Atlanta and two of its former executives after the company’s stock price dropped following the withdrawal of earnings guidance in mid-2001. Cisco retained Winston as lead counsel in the litigation after it acquired Scientific-Atlanta. After the close of discovery, which lasted approximately two years, the court granted summary judgment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senzarin v. Abbott Severance Pay Plan for Employees of Kos Pharmaceuticals
Abbott Laboratories
Our attorneys secured a victory for Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which upheld a ruling that an Abbott pharmaceutical sales representative was ineligible for severance benefits. The plaintiff sought the benefits after she quit on "good reason" because she alleged she was forced to travel more than 50 miles from her home for work. But Abbott, using a "straight-line measurement" analysis to measure distance via a weighted average, found the pharmaceutical sales rep actually travelled under 50 miles. The court ruled that it was not unreasonable for Abbott to use its method to calculate her distance and that Abbott did not act arbitrarily when denying the benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPIU v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
We represented Jefferson Smurfit Corp. (JSC) in a class action filed by various unions and more than 3,500 retirees under ERISA and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act challenging changes to JSC’s retiree medical benefits plan and the portion of the cost charged to retirees. The plaintiffs claimed oral and written labor contractual promises to provide lifetime benefits, as well as fraud and misrepresentation regarding the costs of the plan. After four years of massive discovery and many hard-fought pretrial battles, Winston & Strawn obtained judgment on all points for JSC on the eve of trial, saving our client more than $200 million in liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CollegeNET v. CoreLogic, MarketLinx
CoreLogic, Inc. and MarketLinx
Winston & Strawn successfully represented MarketLinx, a division of CoreLogic, a leading provider of information, in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The court affirmed a lower court decision holding that the patent asserted against MarketLinx was invalid as obvious. The case was brought in 2009 against MarketLinx by CollegeNET, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. CollegeNET alleged several CoreLogic MarketLinx products—including the MLXchange, TEMPO, and Fusion multiple listing service (MLS) systems—infringed a CollegeNET patent related to the automatic sending of notifications when newly-entered data matches predefined search criteria. In November 2011, the court granted MarketLinx summary judgment tha
|
|
|
|
|
|
Panasonic Consumer Antitrust Class Action
Panasonic Corporation
Winston lawyers secured a victory for Panasonic Corporation in a consumer antitrust class action brought by indirect purchasers of SD memory cards, who challenged the SD card patent pool and licensing program. The plaintiffs’ complaint, concerning an alleged market "entry fee" via the SD card format, mirrored allegations brought by Samsung Electronics Co. in a related case that has also been dismissed with prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katherine Fettke v. McDonald?s, Bantransfats.com v. McDonald?s
McDonald's Corp.
In 2002, McDonald?s announced that it planned to reduce the trans fatty acid (TFA) levels of its fried foods, but operational difficulties delayed the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
Grant Thornton LLP
We represent Grant Thornton LLP, as U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International, in the consolidated securities fraud and professional liability litigation arising out of the collapse of Parmalat, the Italian dairy conglomerate. The cases involve important issues of vicarious liability for international accounting organizations and their member firms. We obtained a summary judgment dismissing a $10 billion lawsuit by the bankruptcy trustee and are defending the dismissal in the Second Circuit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Countrywide Financial Corporation Securities Litigation
Grant Thornton LLP
A Winston & Strawn team won dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Grant Thornton in the consolidated securities class action cases concerning mortgage giant Countrywide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Tarragon Corporation Securities Litigation
Grant Thornton LLP
A team of Winston litigators obtained dismissal of a putative securities class action brought by shareholders of the real estate developer Tarragon Corporation against our client Grant Thornton LLP. Tarragon restated two prior years’ financial statements in April 2007 and, a few months later, filed for bankruptcy as a result of the deterioration in the housing market. Shortly thereafter, a putative class filed a securities fraud action against Tarragon, several of its officers and directors, and Grant Thornton, which had audited the financial statements that were later restated. The district court accepted our arguments and dismissed the claims against Grant Thornton, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that Grant Thornton’s aud
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation
Grant Thornton LLP
Winston & Strawn serves as lead trial counsel in this MDL pending in the Southern District of New York, representing Grant Thornton, LLP, the auditors of Refco, a brokerage firm that collapsed in October 2005 when fraud was discovered in Refco’s financial statements. We represent Grant Thornton in the consolidated lawsuits that followed the fraud’s disclosure. Those suits have included two putative securities fraud class action lawsuits and several common-law tort suits brought by Refco customers and investors, as well as a massive tort suit brought by a Litigation Trustee appointed in Refco’s bankruptcy. We succeeded in removing several cases from state court and in defeating motions to remand. In all of the cases in which motions to dismi
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Larry L. Hillblom Probate Case
The Larry L. Hillblom Foundation, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented the foundation of DHL founder Larry L. Hillblom in its defense of a claim filed by a New York woman on behalf of her two children for a share of a $600 million estate—and an insurance policy that defended such claims—after the probate estate was distributed and closed. We successfully defended the claim to judgment and the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joey Bishop Trust Actions
Nora Garibotti
Winston & Strawn represented a beneficiary of the late comedian Joey Bishop’s trust instruments in actions to set aside Bishop’s gifts to his lawyers, and for related damages. Both actions were settled on the eve of trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JF Enterprises v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
Winston & Strawn secured a post-trial victory for American Suzuki Motor Corp. in a case involving allegedly false advertising at a Missouri Suzuki dealership. After a state court jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages, the circuit court granted Suzuki's motion for a new trial, agreeing with Winston that there were issues with both the compensatory and punitive damage awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Sugar Cooperative, et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, et al.
Corn Refiners Association
We are currently representing the Corn Refiners Association (“CRA”) and the U.S. manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc., Cargill, Corn Products International, and Roquette America, Inc., in a high-profile false advertising matter recently filed against the association and its members by Western Sugar Cooperative, Michigan Sugar Company, and C&H Sugar Company, Inc., and other manufacturers or refiners of sugar and their trade associations. The suit alleges that the defendants’ efforts to describe high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar,” natural, and nutritionally and metabolically equivalent to cane and beet sugar, is false and misleading under the federal Lanham Act
|
|
|
|
|
|
Applied Card System Wage & Hour Litigation
Applied Card Systems Inc.
We represented Applied Card Systems in an overtime misclassification case in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Kenneth Marra. The plaintiffs allege that a group of ACS supervisors were improperly classified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements and sought certification of a class of all supervisors nationwide. However, Winston & Strawn defeated the plaintiff's motion and the class was limited to supervisors at ACS's south Florida location. The case was subsequently settled on terms very favorable to our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lear Corp. Shareholder Litigation
Lear Corporation
We represented Lear Corporation in connection with several shareholder derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery and elsewhere, which challenged the company’s proposed 2007 merger with an affiliate of Carl Icahn, then the company’s largest shareholder, in a transaction valued at approximately $5.3 billion. After months of expedited discovery, we were successful in defeating the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and allowing the merger to be voted on by the company’s shareholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Potash Antitrust Litigation
JSC International Potash Company and JSC
We secured an appellate victory for JSC International Potash and JSC Silvinit in two class actions involving direct and indirect purchasers of potash. Plaintiffs alleged a worldwide conspiracy to fix the price of potash, which is used to make fertilizer. Damages were expected to range in the billions, including penalties. Judge Ruben Castillo denied the motions to dismiss but certified the issues for interlocutory appeal, which was argued in June 2010 before the Seventh Circuit. In September 2011, the appeals court vacated the order and remanded the case, instructing the district court to dismiss the price-fixing claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morrison v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
The plaintiff's claim for allegedly owing benefits under the client's life insurance plan was denied as untimely. The plaintiff relied on alleged discrepancies in the plan document and SPD to argue a different limitations period should apply. We obtained a dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims in the District Court. The plaintiff appealed to the Sixth Circuit and we argued and won all aspects of the appeal for our client. Adopting almost entirely the arguments set forth in our oral argument and briefs regarding the standard for resolving conflicts between SPD and Plan provisions, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment for our client on all claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keybanc v. Alpine Biomed
Alpine Biomed Corp.
Our attorneys obtained a favorable settlement for a biomedical company in a dispute over the finder’s fee in a financing transaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catalina Marketing Corp. (AAA Arbitration)
Catalina Marketing Corporation
Representation of Catalina Marketing Corp. in a commercial dispute. A favorable settlement was obtained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kanter v. Barella
MedQuist Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented MedQuist, a medical transcription service provider, in a derivative lawsuit asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against our client, its majority shareholder, Philips, and ten current and former MedQuist board members arising from allegations that MedQuist had systematically overbilled its customers for medical transcription services. This action, brought in the District of New Jersey, was one of six class actions filed following a July 2004 press release in which MedQuist announced the findings of an independent review of its billing methods. The New Jersey district court dismissed the derivative suit against MedQuist for failure of the plaintiff to make a demand on the MedQuist board and plaintiff's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moncrief Oil v. OAO Gazprombank
OAO Gazprombank
Winston & Strawn served as lead counsel in the defense of Gazprombank, the third-largest bank in Russia, in agent claims brought by Moncrief Oil in Texas State Court. The plaintiff alleged that our client interfered with Moncrief's relationship with another U.S. oil company, engaged in a massive conspiracy, and misappropriated confidential information, all in connection with an alleged dispute involving one of the world's largest natural gas fields, the Yuzhno Russkoye in West Siberia. Following a hearing in the summer of 2009, the court dismissed Gazprombank, with the action proceeding against certain other defendants. In 2010, the Texas Appellate Court dismissed Gazprombank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
$270 Million Promissory Note Litigation
Alexander Gliklad
Winston & Strawn has won a series of favorable decisions on behalf of international businessman Alexander Gliklad in his lawsuit against Michael Chernoi. The New York Supreme Court has denied Chernoi's objection to New York jurisdiction, his multiple efforts to change the forum to Israel, questioned the viability of Chernoi's defenses, and opined in favor of Gliklad's likelihood of ultimate victory in the case, which was brought in 2009 to enforce a one-page $270 million promissory note signed by Chernoi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winston Secures Appellate Victory for Major Banks
Wells Fargo
Winston & Strawn won a significant victory for clients Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and SunTrust, as well as more than 30 other bank defendants. Three putative class actions sought to hold the banks liable for tens of millions of dollars the plaintiffs lost when they invested in a Ponzi scheme. The banks were successful in the District Court, and the Sixth Circuit, in a published opinion dismissing the cases against the banks, affirmed the limitations judgment argued by Winston & Strawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation
Southern Marketing Agency, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represents Southern Marketing Agency (SMA) in six antitrust class action lawsuits that are consolidated in federal court in Greenville, Tenn. SMA is a “marketing-agency-in common” formed by a group of five large dairy co-ops that are alleged to control 75 percent of the milk produced in the southeastern United States. Current and former southeastern dairy farmers brought claims of monopolization, restraint of trade, and price-fixing and seek hundreds of millions of dollars in alleged damages. This case has drawn significant media attention and caught the eyes of Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sen. Russ Feingold, who have called for antitrust officials to further examine the dairy market
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Winston & Strawn represented Caraco in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Ortho-McNeil in an effort to block approval of Caraco’s application with the FDA seeking permission to market a generic version of Ortho-McNeil’s painkiller Ultracet® (tramadol/acetaminophen). Ortho-McNeil alleged that our client’s proposed generic Ultracet infringed a patent claiming tramadol and acetaminophen compositions “in a weight ratio of about 1:5,” which Ortho-McNeil had interpreted to mean a range of ratios from 1:3.6 to 1:7.1. Caraco’s proposed weight ratio for its generic was outside of this range, but Ortho-McNeil argued that Caraco could produce individual pills that did fall within Ortho-McNeil’s interpretation of the patent claim. Working with Ca
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caraco Pharmaceuticals v. Forest Laboratories
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
A team of Winston & Strawn lawyers obtained a major victory on behalf of Caraco Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceuticals. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 6,916,941, one of two critical patents that protects Lexapro, a $2 billion-per-year anti-depressant manufactured by Forest Laboratories. Under the Hatch Waxman Act, Caraco is prohibited from entering the market for generic Lexapro until it obtains an order stating that the ‘941 patent was invalid or not infringed. But when Caraco sought a declaratory judgment to that effect, Forest unilaterally granted Caraco a covenant not to sue for infringement, seeking to avoid trial and arguing that the covenant eliminated the case or controversy, thus depriving the district court of jur
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novartis v. Sun Pharmaceuticals
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
Winston & Strawn secured a significant settlement for client Sun Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Novartis involving its Alzheimer’s drug Exelon® (rivistigmine). Novartis sued Sun on two patents after Sun filed its Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking to market generic rivistigmine. That matter was consolidated as part of a multi-district litigation action in the Southern District of New York. This case involved several complex discovery issues, including lengthy proceedings before Israeli courts and a privilege dispute involving the application of Swiss law, which culminated in a 100-page opinion by the court. The Winston team aggressively pursued an inequitable conduct theory, forcing Novartis to drop the la
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd.
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Winston & Strawn represented Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. in an action brought by Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc. in the District Court of New Jersey in which Ortho-McNeil asserted that Caraco infringed certain claims of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE39,221. The patent purported to cover the pain reliever marketed as Ultracet®, which is a combination of tramadol and acetaminophen. The court granted summary judgment for Caraco, holding that Ortho-McNeil’s asserted claims were obvious and therefore invalid as a matter of law. This decision paves the way for Caraco’s continued distribution and sale of its popular generic version of Ultracet®.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals
Abbott Laboratories
Winston & Strawn represented Abbott Laboratories, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, and NaPro Bio Therapeutics in a patent infringement case against Mylan Pharmaceuticals involving the leading cancer drug Paclitaxel. This high-stakes case involved five patents, virtually every conceivable type of infringement defense, and six expert witnesses. Before trial, our attorneys succeeded in eliminating most of Mylan’s defenses through summary judgment motions. After a trial in the Western District of Pennsylvania, we defeated Mylan’s final defense, and the court held that Mylan had infringed Mayne’s valid and enforceable patents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TAP Pharmaceutical Products v. Former Vendor
TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc.
Winston & Strawn litigators obtained a complete victory for TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc. in a hotly contested arbitration filed by one of TAP’s former vendors for its blockbuster drug Prevacid. The plaintiff claimed breach of contract, theft of trade secrets, promissory estoppel, and a variety of related claims, and sought over $69 million in damages and a permanent injunction against our client. After a three-day arbitration involving numerous witnesses, including two damages experts, the arbitrator ruled in TAP’s favor on each of the ten counts filed by plaintiff and denied plaintiff’s request for damages and an injunction. In doing so, the arbitrator adopted nearly word-for-word the arguments made by TAP during the arbitration and i
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultreo v. Proctor & Gamble
Ultreo, Inc.
Winston scored a major victory for client, Ultreo, Inc. against the Procter & Gamble Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. P&G, the manufacturer of Oral B toothbrushes and other dental care products, brought an action against our client, Ultreo, the creator and manufacturer of the Ultreo power toothbrush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hyundai Motor Company v. National Union
Hyundai Motor America
Winston & Strawn represented Hyundai in seeking reimbursement of costs incurred in defending litigation involving its use of an allegedly patented Web technology that advertises available features and assists customers in making a purchasing decision. We obtained a landmark decision in the Ninth Circuit on April 5, 2010 at 600 F. 3d 1092.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bunting v. William Blair & Co. LLC
Chicago Parking Meters, LLC
Winston & Strawn recently won dismissal of a putative 2.8 million-person class action that sought nearly a billion dollars in damages over the privatization of the City of Chicago’s parking meters. Winston, on behalf of clients Morgan Stanley and Chicago Parking Meters, LLC (“CPM”), defeated plaintiff’s claim that CPM, a consortium led by Morgan Stanley, conspired with William Blair & Company—the City’s outside investment advisor—to undervalue the City’s parking meter assets. The City leased its parking meters to CPM in a $1.15 billion, 75-year privatization contract. Plaintiff, who sought class status on behalf of all residents of the City, alleged that William Blair breached its fiduciary duty to the City and its residents by failing to p
|
|
|
|
|
|
NorthShore University HealthSystem Antitrust Litigation
NorthShore University HealthSystem
Winston & Strawn successfully defeated class certification in a putative antitrust class action filed against our client NorthShore University HealthSystem (formerly Evanston Northwestern Healthcare). The plaintiffs alleged that the merger of Evanston Hospital and Highland Park Hospital in 2000 anticompetitively raised prices for healthcare services in violation of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The plaintiffs sought to certify a massive class containing all patients, employers, and health insurance companies that paid for services over the past 10 years. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling to the Seventh Circuit. Winston & Strawn previously represented North Shore successfully against
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appert v. Morgan Stanley
Morgan Stanley
Our attorneys served as trial counsel on behalf of Morgan Stanley in a putative class action seeking the recovery of handling fees associated with tens of thousands of securities transactions from 1998 to the present. The case was successfully dismissed upon motion, and was dismissed again after the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association v. Nicholas Maounis, Charles Winkler, Robert Jones, Brian Hunter and Amaranth Advisors
Amaranth Advisors L.L.C.
In a significant decision, we obtained the dismissal of a securities fraud action and common law claims brought against Amaranth Advisors, LLC and its executives by the San Diego County Employee's Retirement Association. SDCERA invested $175 million in 2005 in Amaranth Partners LLC, a fund managed by Advisors. The fund did extraordinarily well throughout 2005 and up to September 2006, when it lost approximately two-thirds of its value as a result of significant losses in, and costs related to, its natural gas trading portfolio. In March 2007, SDCERA filed the lawsuit, alleging that SDCERA had been induced to invest and hold its investment in the fund through misrepresentations concerning risks associated with Amaranth's energy trading and d
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winston Protects Antiquities from Sale in Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Case
Winston & Strawn (Pro Bono)
Winston & Strawn won a major appellate victory in the Seventh Circuit involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and artifacts in the collections of the Field Museum of Natural History and the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute. The case arose out of proceedings in which victims of a 1997 terrorist attack in Jerusalem sued Iran and won a $71 million dollar default judgment. To collect on that judgment, the plaintiffs initiated attachment proceedings against three collections of Persian artifacts in Chicago. Reversing a lower court's ruling, the Seventh Circuit held that the FSIA makes sovereign property presumptively immune from attachment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation ERISA Class Action
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented the Administrative Committee of the Smurfit Stone Container Corp. (SSC) Retirement and Pension Plans (the Plans) and various directors and officers in four federal court actions filed in Chicago, Delaware, and Kansas City involving ERISA violation claims. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated provisions of ERISA involving certain losses that the Plans experienced in connection with the financial crisis and with SSC’s subsequent bankruptcy filing. Plaintiffs initially claimed damages and losses in excess of $150 million. The parties agreed to mediation, which was conducted in New York but was only moderately successful. Winston lawyers successfully sought to consolidate the pending actions in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank P. Slattery, Jr., et al. v. United States
Slattery, Jr. Frank P.
Our attorneys secured a judgment from the Court of Federal Claims of $371 million (later reduced to $276 million) against the United States on behalf of clients Frank Slattery and the shareholders of Meritor Savings Bank. This class action and derivative action was brought on behalf of the shareholders of Meritor Savings Bank in Philadelphia, which was seized by the FDIC in December 1992. The plaintiffs sued the United States on theories of breach of contract and unconstitutional taking. After a six-month trial, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims found that the FDIC had breached its contract with and unlawfully seized Meritor, which was awarded $276 million in damages. In July 2010, we successfully argued en banc before the Federal Circuit to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Circuit Rules in Favor of L-7 Designs in Dispute with Old Navy
L-7 Designs, Inc.
Winston & Strawn obtained a major victory on behalf fashion designer Todd Oldham when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Oldham's company, L-7 Designs, Inc., had presented plausible claims for breach of contract and wrongful termination against retail clothing giant Old Navy LLC. The case was remanded for further proceedings in the district court, a rare result for an appeal resolved on the merits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southeast Missouri Hospital and St. Francis Medical Center v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
C.R. Bard, Inc. - Chicago
We obtained a dismissal for client C.R. Bard in a matter brought by St. Francis Medical Center and a nationwide class of hospitals, alleging that Bard entered into contracts with Group Purchasing Organizations that excluded competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and caused hospitals to pay inflated prices for Bard's urological catheters. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Re: Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation
Spin Master Ltd.
Our attorneys serve as lead trial counsel in this consumer class action, representing Spin Master Ltd., Moose Enterprise Party Ltd., Target Corporation, and Toys “R” Us concerning false representations made on packaging for Aqua Dots, a children’s toy, that was mistakenly made with a chemical that converts into GHB (the “date rape drug”) when ingested in the human body. After a product recall was done with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, nine class action suits were filed, including two in the Central District of California. After consolidating the cases before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, we defeated class certification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Hospira, Inc.
Mayne Pharma Limited
Winston represented Hospira in a patent litigation matter brought by Sanofi-Aventis to protect its blockbuster cancer drug Eloxatin™. A dozen makers of generic pharmaceutical products, including Hospira, had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), each one vying to be first to market with a generic version of the $1.5 billion-per-year drug. Under FDA regulations, Hospira’s product was “blocked” by only one patent, while all but one of Hospira’s co-defendants’ products were blocked by additional patents. Our team’s strategy permitted Hospira’s summary judgment motion on the single patent asserted against it to be heard first, despite strident and repeated opposition from both Sanofi-Aventis and the other defendants. Hospira won each
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genentech, Inc. v. County of San Mateo, et al.
Genentech Inc.
Representation of Genentech in a property tax dispute against the County of San Mateo. The County agreed to settle Genentech’s claims that the company paid excess taxes for the years 1990 through 1999 by crediting Genentech with $26.5 million in property taxes over the next six years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eli Lilly Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, et al.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
In another case widely reported in the press, our attorneys secured a win for Sun Pharmaceuticals in a two-week trial, beating Eli Lilly’s patent covering Strattera®, a leading ADHD drug that has generated more than $3 billion for Lilly. This victory clears the way for generic competition that otherwise would have been blocked until 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adame, et al. v. State of California, et al.
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
We obtained a favorable settlement for Velsicol Chemical Company in a mass action brought by 150 plaintiffs in the complex litigation department in Santa Clara County Superior Court (San Jose, California). Plaintiffs claimed that historical application of our client’s products at an agricultural research and development site, as well as individual homes, resulted an assortment of bodily injuries, including many different forms of cancer, increased need for medical monitoring, and property diminution. The case settled at an early stage in the litigation on highly favorable terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fishoff v. Coty
Coty Inc.
Our attoneys obtained a motion to dismiss in a case involving securities and common law fraud claims asserted against our client, Coty Inc. The case arose out of purported misrepresentations in connection with the exercise of 200,000 vested stock options under the Coty Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) by Coty's then-CFO, a participant in the LTIP. Coty moved to dismiss, primarily on the grounds that the plaintiff's participation in the LTIP did not involve a purchase or sale of a security within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In granting Coty's motion, the court applied the standard adopted by the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551 (1979), that an employee pension or benefit p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arista Records et al v. Launch Media, Inc.
Yahoo! Inc.
We represented Launch Media, Inc. (a subsidiary of Yahoo!) in a case in which all of the major record labels asserted claims against Launch Media for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs claimed that Launch Media operated its LAUNCHcast service without negotiating a license, as required for interactive services under the Copyright Act, and sought statutory damages of as much as $2 billion (based upon a claim that Launch willfully infringed on more than 1,000 albums and more than 10,000 individual songs played by LAUNCHcast). Launch Media claimed that its service was not interactive, and that it was therefore entitled to an automatic, statutory license. After a 10-day trial in the Southern District of New York, a jury found that Launch Med
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPM Adjustment Litigation
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn continues to serve as lead counsel for Philip Morris USA in its dispute over a multi-billion dollar reduction in annual payments (known as the NPM Adjustment) due by Philip Morris USA and other tobacco companies to 46 states and several other jurisdictions under the 1998 national tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (the "MSA?"). Philip Morris won a series of arbitrations against the MSA states that established the predicate for the NPM Adjustments under the MSA. Following that, the states claimed that they each had a defense to the application of the Adjustment under the MSA, the availability of which should be litigated in their respective state courts. Philip Morris and other tobacco companies responded by filing motions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael F. Shanahan, Sr. Grand Jury Indictment/SEC Lawsuit
Michael F. Shanahan, Sr.
The firm achieved an extremely favorable resolution of a federal criminal case in the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of client Michael Shanahan, Sr., former chairman of the St. Louis Blues hockey team and the Chairman and CEO of a major defense contracting company, Engineered Support Systems, Inc. (ESSI). Mr. Shanahan, Sr. and his son, Michael Shanahan, Jr., who was a member of ESSI's board of directors and the company's former Chief Financial Officer, were charged with various crimes, including mail and wire fraud, relating to an alleged scheme to backdate stock options at ESSI over a period of approximately six years. Under the government's allegations, the defendants were facing potential sentences of in excess of 10 years in jai
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Re AIG ERISA Litigation
Howard I. Smith
Winston & Strawn represents Howard I. Smith, the former Chief Financial Officer of American International Group, Inc. (AIG), in several pending civil litigation matters arising out of the alleged insurance industry-wide bid-rigging and undisclosed contingent commissions paid to insurance brokers, AIG's 2005 restatement of its financial statements for the years 2000 through 2004, and other matters. The firm has secured favorable settlements of certain of the matters on behalf of our client, including a federal consolidated ERISA action brought against AIG and certain of its current and former executives for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to properly manage AIG's ERISA plans. Our client made no payment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company
Republic of Ecuador
We represent the Republic of Ecuador in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. Claimants Chevron and Texaco are seeking more than $1.6 billion in damages on the grounds that seven lawsuits filed by Texaco in the Republic's courts have been either unduly delayed or decided incorrectly, resulting in a claimed "denial of justice." The arbitrators' decision is pending. This arbitration is part of a series of disputes involving these parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana v. Maurice R. Greenberg, Edward E. Matthews, Howard I. Smith, Thomas R. Tizzio and C. V. Starr & Co., Inc
Howard I. Smith
This shareholder derivative action was originally commenced by the plaintiff on behalf of nominal defendant AIG against officers and directors of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that hundreds of million of dollars of commissions paid to C.V. Starr & Co., a privately held affiliate of AIG, were unnecessary because AIG could have done the work itself. After an investigation by a Special Litigation Committee, which recommended termination of the litigation, a revised, more expansive complaint was filed incorporating allegations concerning the alleged accounting improprieties contained in AIG’s 2005 restatement of its financial statements. We engaged in a vigorous defense of our client’s rights, skillfully
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayer Schering Pharma AG, et al. v. Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Teva North America
In one of the more significant cases Winston has litigated for Barr/Teva North America, the company filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market its generic equivalent of the oral contraceptive pill Yasmin® (drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol). We took the case through fact and expert discovery, argued the case during a four-week bench trial, and argued the appeal before the Federal Circuit in 2009. Bayer Schering had asserted patent infringement claims against Barr related to U.S. Patent No. 6,787,531 covering Yasmin®, which had annual U.S. sales of $575 million in 2008. On behalf of Barr, our team developed an obviousness defense, as well as additional defenses, to challenge the validity and enforceability of the Yasmin® patent. The court
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Epogen & Aranesp Off-label Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Fresenius Medical Care North America
Our attorneys successfully defended Fresenius Medical Care North America and obtained a rare dismissal of a class action at the initial pleading stage in this case in which health benefit plans alleged that Amgen had promoted two drugs for off-label use despite serious associated health risks. The plans also alleged that Amgen, Fresenius, and DaVita had violated RICO and California unfair competition and false advertising laws. This case has been cited as precedent in a number of subsequent dismissals of similar matters by other federal courts. The dismissal was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in October 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Marsulex Refinery Services
Marsulex, Inc.
A rare result was recently achieved by Winston when a plaintiff, Exxon/Mobil, not only dismissed the action it had filed against our client, Marsulex Corp., but paid Marsulex to resolve the dispute. Marsulex had provided refinery services (e.g., emission scrubbing) for several years to one of Exxon's largest refineries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. At the conclusion of the contract, Exxon refused payment on the final contract payment. While negotiations had commenced to resolve the dispute, Exxon filed a pre-emptive federal district court complaint in New Orleans earlier alleging that Marsulex had breached the contract and engaged in service deficiencies that resulted in approximately $30 million in damages to Exxon. Our team worked with Marsu
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taurus LLP v. Hyundai Motor America
Hyundai Motor America
An e-commerce case attacking Hyundai's internet presence was brought by one of the more notorious and successful patent trolls. Our litigation team secured an early and favorable claim construction, which led to an early and dispositive summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client with prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulcan Golf v. Google, et al
Oversee.net
We successfully defended a nationwide putative class action against our client Oversee.net involving RICO, cybersquatting, and other trademark-related claims based on allegations that the defendants perpetrated a “deceptive domain” scheme whereby they registered and monetized domain names confusingly similar to registered and unregistered trademarks, as well as the personal names of individuals. Winston got the RICO claims dismissed, discouraged plaintiffs from seeking an injunction, defeated class certification, and then negotiated a nominal settlement with the named plaintiffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Mercantile Bank v. David Schneider, et al.
Pacific Mercantile Bank
Winston trial lawyers recently won a jury verdict for client Pacific Mercantile Bank in a case against multiple borrowers on a credit line arising out of the development of luxury residential real estate in Hawaii. At trial, the bank sought and obtained a non-suit on the borrower’s lender liability cross-complaint for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. After deliberating for one hour, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the bank on claims of breach of contract and fraudulent transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanofi-Aventis v. Barr Labs, Inc.
Teva North America
Winston & Strawn obtained a favorable settlement after a trial in Delaware federal court involving U.S. Patent Nos. 5,976,573 and 6,143,329 owned by Aventis. The patents cover triamcinolone acetonide nasal spray, which is used for nasal allergies and marketed by Sanofi-Aventis under the trade name Nasacort AQ. In this ANDA bench trial, Barr put forth defenses of non-infringement and invalidity. Shortly after trial was completed, the parties settled on favorable terms for Barr whereby Barr will be permitted to launch a generic version of Nasacort AQ prior to the expiration of the patents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foodservice Distribution Company Wage and Hour Litigation
Winston successfully argued that because of the unique nature of the truck drivers at issue and the lack of records indicating a meal period was taken was insufficient to certify a class when substantial numbers of putative class members declared they were able to take meal and rest periods as needed, and were aware of the overall company policy encouraging drivers to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Entertainment Company Wage and Hour Litigation
Winston & Strawn is currently representing the largest live entertainment company in the world in a wage and hour class action in California including allegations of meal and rest break violations, failure to reimburse business expenses, and off-the-clock work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nationwide Restaurant Chain Wage & Hour Litigation
Winston & Strawn is currently representing a nationwide restaurant chain in a California wage and hour class action including allegations of meal and rest period violations, off-the-clock work, expense reimbursement violations, and WARN violations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. v. Hospira, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp.
Mayne Pharma Limited
Winston won a ruling on behalf of our client Hospira knocking out two patents covering formulations for Sanofi's blockbuster drug Taxotere®, a leading cancer drug with $1.5 billion in annual sales in the U.S. alone. This decision will permit Hospira to launch generic versions of Taxotere at least three years earlier than originally planned. The savings to consumers will easily exceed $3 billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation
Teva North America
A team of Winston attorneys recently prevailed in a patent trial for client Teva Pharmaceuticals. In 2009, Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval to make and sell a generic version of Amrix, a brand drug prescribed to treat muscle spasms. The patent holder sued Teva for infringement of two patents covering Amrix. After a bench trial before in the District of Delaware in October 2010, the judge issued a ruling finding both patents invalid for obviousness. The court’s ruling opens the door for generic companies to provide patients with a much lower cost alternative to Amrix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Pest Control Company Wage & Hour Class Actions
Winston & Strawn won a significant victory for a national pest control company. A federal court agreed to deny a former employee's bid for class certification of an unpaid overtime claim on behalf of all current and former employees who both inspect for termite infestation and sell termite control services. The court concluded that the individual inquiries associated with determining whether all of the employees were properly classified as exempt from overtime predominated over any common issues that might be decided on a class basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RLJCS Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Professional Benefit Trust, Inc. et al.
Professional Benefit Trust, Inc.
Winston & Strawn secured a summary judgment decision, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, for the Professional Benefit Trust Multiple Employer Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the “Trust”) in a unique case involving a welfare benefit plan that was designed and operated to allow employers to pre-fund certain benefits on a tax-deferred basis pursuant to IRC § 419A(f)(6). The plaintiffs, who contracted with our client for death benefits, alleged 16 counts including violations of civil RICO, ERISA, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and other state law claims. As a means of reinsuring itself for payment of the death benefits, the Trust purchased life insurance from var
|
|
|
|
|
|
USAirways Pension Litigation
AON Corporation
We represented the named fiduciary of the USAirways retirement plans against allegations that the plan's investments in company stock violated fiduciary duties under ERISA. We obtained a dismissal of all claims against our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Van Arkel v. Discover Financial Services LLC
Morgan Stanley
Winston & Strawn litigators obtained a victory for client Discover Financial Services LLC in an adversary proceeding filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This is also being hailed as a victory for credit card issuers against the litany of “billing error notice” cases that have been filed around the country. The plaintiff, a former Discover cardholder, alleged that our client violated the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) by not properly investigating billing error notices she had sent to Discover, and claimed Discover did not have the right to assess her late fees and other financing charges because it had failed to provide her with all required disclosures prior to the opening of the account. Judge Black g
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation
Marsulex, Inc.
Winston’s antitrust team represented Toronto-based Marsulex Corp. and ChemTrade Logistics in In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs in these cases alleged that several producers of sulfuric acid engaged in a conspiracy to restrict the output and supply of that product. Marsulex and ChemTrade originally were exonerated in any criminal proceedings as a result of obtaining amnesty from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ. After both parties were named as defendants in a civil case, our attorneys filed a motion for civil amnesty under a new federal statute. The Northern District of Illinois granted our motion, invoking the new federal amnesty statute for the first time. As a result, the case against our client settled for a nomi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abbott Laboratories v. Baxter, Inc.
Abbott Laboratories
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld client Abbott Laboratories’ position that a co-terminus, non-compete provision in a patent licensing agreement did not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Applying the doctrine of ancillarity, the Appeals Court agreed with Abbott’s view that the non-compete running toward the licensor, Baxter, was reasonable in scope and related to the underlying patent license agreement. As a result, the Seventh Circuit upheld Abbott’s contention that Baxter could not compete with Abbott’s branded inhalant anesthetic drug, Ultane®. Upon the expiry of the non-compete, Baxter then attempted to suggest to potential customers that they could use their current Abbott-owned vaporizers to administer Baxter’s generic p
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
We represented Smurfit Stone Container in In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, an industry-wide price-fixing class action consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Many individual purchasers of linerboard opted out of the class-wide settlement and attempted to continue litigation with our client and other industry members. When the court issued a decision requiring the opt-outs to ratify their actions, hundreds of plaintiffs were unable to adequately verify their actions, resulting in the dismissal of hundreds of millions of dollars in claims. Our client then reached favorable settlements in several pending actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. v. Microsoft
Microsoft Corporation
Winston & Strawn attorneys were retained by Microsoft Corporation as co-lead counsel in connection with a series of highly publicized antitrust claims brought by various federal and state governmental entities. We defended the company in connection with the claims being pursued by the nine non-settling states. Our attorneys gave the opening statement for Microsoft, put CEO Bill Gates on the witness stand, and cross-examined some of the states' witnesses before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who ruled in Microsoft's favor, thereby upholding the settlement reached by Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Norvir Antitrust Litigation - Indirect Purchasers
Abbott Laboratories
Winston secured a huge victory in the Ninth Circuit for Abbott Laboratories, which ended a high-profile indirect purchaser antitrust class action that involved a 400 percent increase for Abbott’s HIV drug Norvir.® In August 2008, on the eve of trial before the Northern District of California, the parties to the original class action agreed to a novel high-low settlement contingent upon the outcome of an interlocutory appeal. Winston designed the settlement for the express purpose of knocking out the massive follow-on cases before the separate trial in those cases. Under the terms of that settlement, Abbott paid $10 million up front to non-profit groups serving HIV patients. Payment of an extra $17.5 million was contingent upon the outcome o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reddy v. MedQuist
MedQuist Inc.
We obtained summary judgment for MedQuist in a RICO lawsuit, seeking billions in damages, filed by a former employee in the Northern District of New Jersey. The lawsuit followed the company's announcement of findings of an independent review of customer billings and its de-listing from the NASDAQ stock exchange in 2004. The complaint was initially filed against MedQuist, its majority shareholder, Phillips, and certain current and former directors, and alleged numerous counts, most of which were dismissed at the pleading stage. The court then granted summary judgment on the remaining claims in favor of the company. Subsequently, the plaintiff tried to file a new action in the Southern District of California. However, the California district
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kanter v. Barella
MedQuist Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented MedQuist, a medical transcription service provider, in a derivative lawsuit asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against our client, its majority shareholder, Philips, and ten current and former MedQuist board members arising from allegations that MedQuist had systematically overbilled its customers for medical transcription services. This action, brought in the District of New Jersey, was one of six class actions filed following a July 2004 press release in which MedQuist announced the findings of an independent review of its billing methods. The New Jersey district court dismissed the derivative suit against MedQuist for failure of the plaintiff to make a demand on the MedQuist board and plaintiff's
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Norvir Antitrust Litigation - Direct Purchasers
Abbott Laboratories
In March 2011, a California jury returned a verdict for our client Abbott Laboratories in an antitrust case The American Lawyer described as “history-making” and “a huge win for Abbott’s lawyers at Winston & Strawn.” The stakes were massive. Abbott’s fierce competitor, GlaxoSmithKline, was seeking more than $1.7 billion in trebled damages under antitrust laws. The jury’s verdict in Abbott’s favor – widely reported in the national press – involved Abbott’s decision in 2003 to raise the price of one of its HIV drugs, Norvir®, by 400 percent. That price increase spawned multiple class actions and government investigations, all of which Winston & Strawn defeated either through court wins, no prosecution decisions, or modest settlements. For ins
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Livermore Trade Secret Litigation
Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC
Our attorneys scored a major trial victory for clients Lawrence Livermore National Security and The Regents of the University of California. The case involved serious, but ultimately unproven, allegations of theft and disclosure of proprietary information relating to technology developed for achieving nuclear fusion ignition. Scientists at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are working on inertial confinement fusion to achieve nuclear fusion ignition. By pointing the world’s most powerful laser at a 2mm capsule filled with hydrogen fuel, scientists hope to fuse hydrogen atoms together, creating a fusion burn like that found in the sun and stars. In 2004, the plaintiffs made presentations under a non-dis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canandaigua Wine Company Tax Dispute - Litigation Costs
Winston & Strawn recently scored an appellate victory for Canandaigua Wine Company, Inc. in a challenge brought by the County of Madera to the lower court’s award of costs in a property tax case. The original dispute arose as a result of an administrative decision rendered by the Madera County Assessment Appeals Board. Canandaigua successfully argued to the Superior Court that, among other things, the Board’s decision was not only based on improper legal grounds, but the decision itself was arbitrary and capricious because it did not conform to the minimum standards prescribed by law. The trial court agreed, and awarded Canandaigua the costs it incurred litigating the case. On appeal, the County argued that the trial court erred in awarding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canandaigua Wine Company Tax Dispute - Attorneys' Fees
Constellation Brands
Winston & Strawn recently scored an appellate victory for Canandaigua Wine Company, Inc. in a challenge brought by the County of Madera regarding the lower court’s award of attorneys’ fees in a property tax dispute. The original case was filed as a result of an administrative decision rendered by the Madera County Assessment Appeals Board. Canandaigua successfully argued to the Superior Court that, among other things, the Board’s decision was not only based on improper legal grounds, but the decision itself was arbitrary and capricious because it did not conform to the minimum standards prescribed by law. The trial court agreed, and awarded Canandaigua the fees it incurred litigating that issue. On appeal, the County of Madera argued that t
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPTi, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
OPTi, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented OPTi, a company that was formerly the leading manufacturer of core logic chipsets, in a patent infringement suit brought against Apple, Inc. The case sought to enforce OPTi's patents on key features of the PCI bus, which is ubiquitous in personal computers and servers. After prevailing on the only contested Markman issue and securing a rare summary judgment of infringement, OPTi prevailed in an April 2009 jury trial in Marshall, Texas. The jury awarded OPTi 100 percent of the $19 million OPTi had requested as damages. Apple's post-trial motions seeking to overturn the jury's liability and damages verdict were denied. The case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The Apple jury award was one of the top
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Food Company Unfair Competition Class Action
We represented a publicly traded international company in the food industry against representatives of a putative class of 1,600 commercial walnut growers throughout California in a $70 million claim alleging that our client failed to pay agreed-upon prices for the growers’ crops, violated various statutes, and committed violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. Our attorneys obtained an order striking all of plaintiffs’ class action allegations, at which point the case was stayed indefinitely by stipulation pending plaintiffs’ appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal. The appeal court recently upheld the trial court’s ruling in full, striking the class allegations from the complaint and finding the parties’ class action waiv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midas International Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
Midas International Corporation
We obtained summary adjudication for our client, Midas, in an insurance coverage action in which plaintiffs claimed that Midas and its franchisees advertised high-quality Midas products and instead provided inferior substitutes, causing more frequent service and damage to other parts. The insurers rejected the initial tender and Winston was asked to follow up and try to secure a defense. After we weighed in, the insurers reconsidered and paid a considerable portion of the outstanding defense costs; however, they left a considerable amount outstanding. We filed suit and moved for summary adjudication that the insurers had a duty to defend, and the insurers cross-moved. After an initial round of briefing, and two supplemental rounds, the cour
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPTi Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation
OPTi, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented OPTi, a company that was formerly the leading manufacturer of core logic chipsets, in connection with its program to monetize its portfolio of patents. Winston attorneys filed suit on behalf of OPTi against NVIDIA Corporation seeking to enforce OPTi's patents on key features of the PCI and LPC buses that are ubiquitous in Intel compatible computers and servers. OPTi prevailed on 13 out of 15 claim limitations at issue at a Markman hearing, and the case then settled, netting OPTi a lump sum payment of $11 million and commitment from NVIDIA to either abandon OPTi's PCI technology or pay going-forward royalties. Since the date of the Markman, our client's market capitalization has more than doubled. In 2009, we rep
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPTi, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices
OPTi, Inc.
We represented OPTi in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas brought against Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) alleging infringement of OPTi's patents related to computer chipset technology. While AMD's last witness was on the stand, the parties reached a settlement, with AMD agreeing to pay OPTi $35 million. This settlement is part of the approximately $80 million in settlements, trial verdicts, and arbitration wins that we have achieved for OPTi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Re 318 Patent Infringement Litigation
Teva North America
We obtained a trial win for Barr Labs in an Abbreviated New Drug Application case in which Barr challenged the validity of a patent covering a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease using a drug called Galantamine, which is sold by Janssen under the trade name Razadyne IR®. This decision enables Barr to compete for a share of what is currently a $130 million market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Shore Baseball Litigation Matter
South Shore Baseball LLC dba the Gary Ra
Winston & Strawn successfully represented four professional minor league baseball teams, the Gary SouthShore Railcats, the Winnipeg Goldeyes, the Kansas City T-Bones, and the Fargo Redhawks, in their successful efforts to transfer their franchises from the Northern League of Professional Baseball Teams (NL) to the American Association (AA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., et al.
Veoh Networks, Inc.
Our attorneys successfully argued on behalf of Veoh in a case brought by Universal Music Group (UMG) filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint asserted common law claims for copyright infringement arising from the uploading, streaming, and downloading of pre-1972 sound recordings on the Veoh web site. Veoh made a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the existence of parallel proceedings in California between the parties over alleged federal copyright violations. In a November 20, 2008 decision, the Supreme Court of the State of New York found that New York was not a convenient forum for this action and handed Veoh yet another victory against UMG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quintec v. Aon Trade Credit
AON Corporation
Winston secured a significant win for Aon Corporation in a Florida appellate court. The case involved a multi-million dollar insurance coverage dispute with a Chilean computer company. The firm was retained on the eve of trial in 2006 to assist local counsel in a bitterly contested trial in Miami. The trial, which was riddled with errors, resulted in a substantial jury verdict against Aon. With accrued interest and statutory attorney fees, the case held an eight-figure post-verdict exposure to Aon. In a published opinion, the appellate court reversed the trial court in total and entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Aon on all issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steiner v. MedQuist
MedQuist Inc.
We represented MedQuist in a shareholder securities fraud class action filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased MedQuist common stock from March 29, 2000 through June 14, 2004. In mid-2004, MedQuist issued a press release in which it announced that it was conducting an internal investigation, and may have overcharged some of its transcription customers. The company's stock was later delisted when, because of the ongoing investigation, the company did not file timely financial reports with the SEC. Based on these occurrences, the plaintiffs alleged that manipulations to MedQuist's client billing systems overcharged customers for medical transcription services, and that improperly inflated revenue numbers wer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sachem Central School District Litigation
URS Corporation
Winston & Strawn obtained a favorable settlement on behalf of URS Corporation in an action brought by the Sachem Central School District involving the construction and renovation of 19 school buildings. The $17 million suit involved alleged defective architectural, engineering, and construction management services and named nine defendants, seven architecture/engineering firms, and two construction managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas Operating Company v. Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
The firm represented Microsoft in a suit brought in the Western District of Washington in which Symantec Corporation (on behalf of Veritas Software Corporation) had alleged billions of dollars of damages. The dispute centered on Microsoft's alleged misuse of Veritas trade secrets, breach of a license agreement, and patent infringement. Microsoft won a complete victory on the patent claims, with the court entering summary judgment in favor of Microsoft and adopting the finding of a Special Master that the patent in suit was invalid and that Microsoft had not infringed. Winston & Strawn was also able to engineer a settlement on the remaining claims at a fraction of the damages sought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Golden Bridge Technology v. Motorola, et al.
Motorola Solutions, Inc.
A Winston & Strawn team secured a victory for Motorola from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with a claim brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Golden Bridge Technology, a developer of wireless communications technology, brought suit against Motorola and other members of a standard-setting organization known as 3GPP (including Nokia, Qualcomm, Lucent, and T-Mobile), alleging that defendants conspired to unlawfully remove certain of Golden Bridge's proprietary technology from the standard. Despite Golden Bridge's contentions that Motorola had secret communications with its co-defendants in an attempt to boycott the use of Golden Bridge's technology and drive it out of the standard, the District Court for the Eastern Dis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly, Co.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
In a case that garnered national press attention, Winston & Strawn defeated a patent covering one of Eli Lilly & Co.’s leading cancer drugs. On behalf of client Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Winston asserted that Lilly engaged in improper double patenting to protect Gemzar®, a blockbuster drug with annual sales exceeding $2 billion per year. Both the district court and the Federal Circuit agreed with Winston and invalidated the offending patent, which will allow generic competition to Gemzar® two-and-a-half years early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMD Capital Group, LLC, et al. v. EPR Capital, LLC, et al.
SMD Capital Group LLC,Frank DeFalco,Hans
On behalf of our client, SMD Capital Group, we were successful in defeating appeals of a judgment we obtained after a trial in New York State Court, New York County, in connection with a dispute concerning multiple real estate development joint ventures. The appeal was dismissed by the First Department of the Appellate Division of the State of New York, and the defendants' motion for leave to appeal and for reargument was denied by the New York Court of Appeals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Barr Labs. Inc.
Teva North America
We obtained a favorable settlement for client Teva/Barr Laboratories, Inc. in case filed by GlaxoSmithKline after Barr filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Dutasteride, which is used to treat benign prostatic hypertrophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock/New Orleans Class Action
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock
A Winston & Strawn team obtained a long-awaited victory for our client, Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company. In a decision issued more than 14 months after oral argument, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of multi-billion dollar claims charging Great Lakes with responsibility for the devastation of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs' claims were based on dredging work performed in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet under contracts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Winston took the lead in a joint briefing on behalf of Great Lakes and the other dredging defendants (together, essentially the entire Gulf Coast dredging industry), and obtained dismissal in the district court based on the government contractor doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conner v. Whiting Corporation
Whiting Corporation
In this civil case for Whiting Corporation, a crane manufacturer, we appealed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment motions based on the Michigan Statute of Repose and other grounds. The appellate court agreed with Whiting’s arguments. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and judgment was entered in favor of our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Witham v. Whiting Corporation
Whiting Corporation
We successfully obtained summary judgment for Whiting Corporation, a crane manufacturer, in this civil case based on the Illinois Statute of Repose by demonstrating that the crane was an improvement to real property rather than a product. The evidence presented resulted in a dismissal for Whiting. The plaintiff had sustained serious and permanent injuries and his wife had filed suit for loss of consortium. The trial court granted summary judgment, which was upheld on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swenson Process v. Balcke Durr
Swenson Process Equipment Inc.
We successfully represented Swenson Process Equipment in a trial relating to breach of contract and infringement of trade secrets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maclean Power, LLC v. PDEX USA, Corp. et al.
MacLean-Fogg Company
Winston secured two very favorable settlement agreements on behalf of MacLean-Fogg Company and MacLean Power LLP in connection with a Lanham Act trademark violation case against two United States distributors that had been passing off Chinese counterfeits of our client's products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AR Int’l Anti-Fraud Systems, Inc. v. Interpol Pretoria, et al.
NCB Pretoria (Interpol Pretoria)
Our attorneys obtained a dismissal for client Interpol Pretoria, a division of the South African Police Force, which serves as the contact point for all Interpol operations in South Africa, in a dispute involving more than $7 million in rewards related to the alleged arrests of one suspect accused of embezzling $72 million and another suspect accused of attempted murder of a famous South African race horse trainer. The district court dismissed the entire case against Interpol Pretoria, with prejudice, on multiple grounds, including that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
First National Mortgage Company v. Federal Realty Investment Trust
First National Mortgage Company
This dispute centered on the enforceability of a one-page letter dually executed at the height of the dot-com bubble setting forth a $31 million ground lease and option contract. Federal Realty Investment Trust – a multibillion-dollar real estate investment trust – argued that the ground lease was unenforceable, but the jury found that the parties intended the contract “be an enforceable agreement between them, regardless of whether they later agreed on a ‘formal agreement.’” After a bench trial on damages, on June 9, 2009 the court entered final judgment for our client, First National Mortgage, in the amount of $15.9 million plus costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Archery Products Patent Litigation
New Archery Products Corp.
Winston & Strawn attorneys obtained a dismissal for New Archery Products in a patent case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. NAP is one of the country’s leading manufacturers of archery products and has several patented products within the archery line. The plaintiff, who had brought 100 such cases last year alone, had alleged that a “sophisticated company” such as NAP should have known that some of its products remained in the retail trade with packaging that contained expired patent numbers. Winston argued that the plaintiff’s conclusory allegations had not established that NAP had knowledge that these old product packages remained in the marketplace. Winston further argued that the plaintiff’s allegation that NAP was a “sophisticate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montgomery v. American Airlines, Inc.
American Airlines
The plaintiff sued his employer, American Airlines, Inc., alleging two civil rights violations relating to his race. First, he claimed that American allowed a hostile work environment to persist in a maintenance shop to which he was briefly assigned as a probationary employee. Second, he claimed that his demotion at the end of his probationary period was motivated by racial discrimination. Specifically, he alleged that he was required to take and pass a qualifying exam that other non-African American employees were not required to take. After discovery, American moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of American on all counts. The plaintiff timely appealed, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Klussman v. Cross Country Bank, et al.
Applied Bank
We took over the defense of Applied Card Bank (formerly Cross Country Bank) in consumer class action litigation in Northern California. The action was brought on behalf of nearly 900,000 cardholders in California who alleged that the bank engaged in abusive collection practices and unfair fee practices in sub-prime credit card industry. After extensive motions practice, the filing of several writ petitions with the Court of Appeal, discovery on class-wide issues, and two mediations, the parties ultimately reached a settlement, which is pending court approval. We also successfully represented Applied Card Bank in another consumer class action in Wisconsin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation
Wyeth
We recently won summary judgment in an antitrust class action against our client, Wyeth (Pfizer), which brought to an end nearly a decade of related federal and state cases in which the plaintiffs had challenged Wyeth's settlement of a patent lawsuit relating to a patented potassium chloride product called K-Dur. In the antitrust litigation, plaintiffs alleged that the patent settlement between our client and Schering-Plough Corporation had anti-competitive effects and resulted in their paying more for K-Dur and other potassium chloride supplements than they otherwise would have paid. Approximately 50 separate state and federal lawsuits were filed making the substantially the same allegations, with the federal cases consolidated in multi-di
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attila Dogan Inc. v. AMEC Ltd.
AMEC America Ltd.
Winston & Strawn is defending AMEC, an international engineering firm based in London, against claims by Attila Dogan, a Turkish general contractor, arising from the design and construction of an industrial project in the Middle East. Attila claims approximately $100 million in damages; AMEC has a $15 million counterclaim. The case is being litigated before the Queens Bench in Calgary, Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health and Environmental Control
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC
Winston won a significant summary judgment victory in favor of Duke Energy in a dispute over the relicensing of its hydroelectric power plants on the Catawba-Wateree River system in South Carolina. This victory was essential in ensuring that Duke Energy will be able to obtain the necessary state and federal permits to allow it to continue operating the power stations at issue. In September 2009, following a decision by the board of South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) denying Duke’s application for a water quality certification for the Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric plants under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Duke Energy filed an action seeking to overturn the board’s decision. Environmental groups Amer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comrie v. IPSCO Inc.
SSAB Enterprises, LLC
Winston & Strawn successfully represented SSAB Enterprises LLC in Comrie v. IPSCO Inc. SSAB is a Swedish-based steel manufacturer, who bought IPSCO’s U.S. assets in 2007. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld IPSCO’s decision to exclude stock-linked bonus payments from the calculation of John W. Comrie’s, a former director, nonqualified deferred compensation plan benefits, known as top hat plans. The three-judge panel found it was reasonable for IPSCO to determine that its top hat plan did not factor in stock-linked bonus payments when calculating benefits of departing employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIRVA Securities Litigation
Goldman Sachs & Co.
We obtained a favorable settlement for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank Securities, Citigroup Global Markets, J.P. Morgan Securities, and Bank of America Securities, the lead underwriters of two public offerings by SIRVA Incorporated, as defendants in a purported shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The defendants included SIRVA; its controlling shareholder, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc.; various officers and directors of SIRVA; PricewaterhouseCoopers; and the respective underwriters of the initial public offering in November 2003 and the secondary public offering in June 2004. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the registration statements and prospectuses
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lincoln v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
Sony Electronics Inc.
Our attorneys represented Sony Electronics in a nationwide consumer class action alleging a defective touchpad in all of Sony's VAIO notebooks. We filed a motion to dismiss all claims in early 2009, and the case was voluntarily dismissed prior to hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA , Inc.
Teva North America
We are currently representing Barr/Teva North America in a case involving the oral contraceptive pill Yaz®. Barr filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market its generic equivalent of Yaz® (drospirenone and ethinyl estradiol) and provided notice to Bayer Schering pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. Bayer Schering did not sue Barr within 45 days as allowed by the Act, and Barr/Teva launched its generic version of Yaz®. Bayer Schering responded with a motion seeking a TRO, which the Northern District of Illinois denied. Bayer Schering also filed an action for patent infringement in the District of Delaware, which has been dismissed, and an action in the District of Nevada, which is pending. Barr/Teva filed an action in the Southern District of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hoosier Energy Clean Air Act New Source Review Enforcement Matter
Hoosier Energy
Winston recently completed a settlement of a Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) enforcement case after 10 months of negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubloff Development Corp. v. SuperValu, Inc.
Rubloff Mundelein LLC
Winston & Strawn currently represents Rubloff and another developer in their lawsuit against SuperValu, Inc. and The Saint Consulting Group, Inc. for their alleged conduct in secretly orchestrating opposition campaigns throughout the country against shopping center developments, including Wal-Mart stores, that are primary competitors of SuperValu's various food store chains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Construction Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation
PPG Industries, Inc.
Winston & Strawn continues to represent PPG Industries in a series of antitrust class actions pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, who allege that they are direct purchasers of construction flat glass, contend that the defendants conspired to fix energy surcharges and prices for construction flat glass during the time period between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006. Construction flat glass is used as a raw material in windows for residential and commercial construction. The putative action seeks damages that, with trebling, could total in the hundreds of million of dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ringwood Mines Litigation
URS Corporation
Winston & Strawn successfully represented URS Corporation, a global environmental consulting firm, in a massive tort suit involving the Ringwood Mines Landfill Superfund site. This action was composed of 45 consolidated complaints naming more than 700 plaintiffs who alleged an assortment of physical and mental injuries, as well as diminution of property value. The plaintiffs alleged that their injuries were caused by the disposal of contaminants and failure to properly remediate the site. The case settled at an early stage in the litigation on highly favorable terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
XL Insurance v. Department of Defense
XL Insurance Company
Winston & Strawn represents XL Insurance, which focuses on environmental, professional liability, and wrap-around policies for major infrastructure projects, in a subrogation claim against the Department of Defense. The dispute centers on environmental remediation costs related to the development of a commercial project under the Navy's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program and recently was filed before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The amount in controversy is approximately $90 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alstom Power, Inc. v. Misener Marine
ALSTOM HOLDINGS
Winston & Strawn represented Alstom in a contract dispute arising out of a marine subcontract for a major power plant. This international arbitration involved defense of claims for extra work and schedule impact. In the initial award, we defeated Misener's $14.8 million claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.F. v. Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories
Winston & Strawn defended Abbott Laboratories in a five-week jury trial involving Abbott?s HIV antibody screening test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smurfit-Stone Supplier Contract Dispute
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
We represented Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. in a contract dispute with one of its recycled paper suppliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Argosy Gaming Company Partnership Dispute
Argosy Gaming Company
In a marathon of appearances in seven different courts in six months, the firm represented Argosy Gaming Company in a dispute between Argosy and its partner Conseco, Inc. over the exercise of a ?buy-sell? right of partnership interests in one of the most profitable casino boats in the United States, involving a total value of more than $1 billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roadmaster v. GE Industrial Systems
General Electric Company
Winston & Strawn recently represented GE and GE Industrial Systems in connection with a destruction of business claim by a defunct treadmill manufacturer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Illinois v. Wilkie, et al.
Walida Wilkie, Jesus Rios, Lawrence Clar
Our attorneys represented AutoZone, Inc. and three of its employees in connection with allegations of obstruction of justice related to its Cicero, Illinois, store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inzerilla v. Philip Morris USA
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Our attorneys scored a significant victory for Philip Morris USA in Inzerilla, an action brought by the spouse of an injured smoker in New York State Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PC Brand Contract Dispute
PC Brand, Inc.
In July 1999, a Chicago jury returned a verdict and an $89 million judgment in favor of Winston & Strawn clients Anthony Gold, P.C. Brand, Inc., and Hanson & Connors, Inc. against Ziff Communications Company. The case involved a breach of contract stemming from the sale of PC Magazine by our client to the defendant in 1982. The victory was highlighted in a Wall Street Journal article, as well as the National Law Journal. In March of 2001, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed as to liability, finding that Ziff had breached its obligations and caused damage to our clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cokenour ERISA Suit
Household Interntional - Board of Direct
The firm represented Household International in a national class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois against our client alleging violations of ERISA related to the investment of plan assets in company stock. In 2003, we obtained the withdrawal of claims against the directors named in this matter. In 2005, we succeeded in settling the case on a basis highly favorable to our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
American General Consumer Class Action (Illinois)
American General Finance, Inc.
American General Consumer Class Action (Illinois) We defended American General Finance in a nationwide class action lawsuit filed by a married couple on behalf of a putative class of consumer loan credit insurance purchasers. The action was removed to federal court due to the plaintiffs? filing of a subsequent bankruptcy. Based on the facts of a Rule 2004 examination of both plaintiffs, including how they were solicited by their counsel to act as lead plaintiffs, our attorneys convinced the plaintiffs and their counsel to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Chicago handgun litigation (4 cases)
Smith & Wesson Corp.
We represented Smith & Wesson as local counsel in two sets of related cases in which the City of Chicago and certain decedents of individuals killed by gun violence sued a large number of gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for negligence and public nuisance. We sought dismissal of all claims as lacking proper legal basis and won pre-trial dismissal of some but no all of the claims at the trial court level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nustad v. Wyeth (Fen-Phen class action)
Wyeth
As regional trial counsel for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, our attorneys tried an individual plaintiff case in Gilmer, Texas, which settled prior to closing arguments. The case is one of numerous opt-out Fen-Phen product liability cases against Wyeth, arising out of the widespread use of fenfluramine (Pondium) and dexfenfluramine (Redux) prescription drugs manufactured by Wyeth to treat obesity, which were withdrawn from the market in 1997.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation
Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented A.E. Staley Manufacturing in a nationwide antitrust class action that was pending after almost six years of discovery. The class, which included Coca-Cola and Pepsi, alleged that Staley and its co-defendants conspired to fix the price of high-fructose corn syrup, the primary sweetener ingredient used in numerous soft drinks and baked goods. The class sought approximately $4 billion in damages. A successful settlement was reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Spherix, Inc.; B-294572
Spherix Inc. f/k/a Biospherics
Winston & Strawn represented Spherix, Inc. in a case that presented a serious threat to our client''s business when the federal government announced it planned to cancel a major reservation services contract renewal with Spherix and award it to a another company on a noncompetitive basis. Our attorneys filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the decision and coordinated legislative opposition to the plan. The government ultimately abandoned its plans, extended Spherix?s contract, and promised to award any future contracts only after conducting a full and open competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cubic Transportation v. Scheidt & Bachmann
Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc.
In late December 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion to dismiss a cause of action filed by Cubic Transportation Systems challenging a $100 million contract award for automated fare collection equipment made by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to client Scheidt and Bachmann (S&B). Winston was retained by S&B after Cubic''s first challenge of the award, brought before the FTA, resulted in a ruling against S&B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smurfit Newsprint v. Southeast Paper Mfg. Co.
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented Smurfit Newsprint in an appeal before the Seventh Circuit, which ruled in favor of our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.B.D.L. Corp., et al. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., et al.; CVS Meridian Inc. and Rite Aid Corp. v. Wyeth, 485 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2007)
Wyeth
Winston & Strawn represented Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and Wyeth in an antitrust class action brought by direct purchasers of Wyeth?s estrogen therapy product, Premarin?, one of the most prescribed medications in the world. The plaintiffs claimed that Wyeth violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by entering into restrictive rebate contracts with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other managed care organizations, allegedly leading to higher prices to direct purchasers. This case consolidated a class action and another lawsuit brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act by two opt-outs, CVS Meridian, Inc. and Rite-Aid Corporation. In June 2005, the federal court in the Southern District of Ohio granted Wyeth?s motion for summary judgment,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telespectrum, Inc. v. SER Solutions, Inc.
SER Solutions Inc.
Winston & Strawn defended SER Solutions, a provider of software for call center functions, against a threatened temporary restraining order sought by Telespectrum, which had purchased software from SER. The plaintiff, an operator of eight call centers, sought the TRO after SER took steps to disable its software due to non-payment of certain monies due from Telespectrum. After several court appearances, our attorneys defeated Telespectrum?s TRO motion and obtained a substantial settlement for SER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roquette v. A.E. Staley, Tate & Lyle plc et al.
Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Tate & Lyle plc, a UK company, and its domestic subsidiary Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. in a case filed by French company Roquette Freres and its American subsidiary Roquette America, Inc. The plaintiff originally filed a theft of trade secrets suit in Iowa state court alleging that our client had wrongfully received misappropriated trade secrets as the result of the recruitment of a former Roquette executive. After our attorneys fought back a preliminary injunction in Iowa, the plaintiffs abandoned their Iowa case and filed a new case in New York federal court alleging RICO and Lanham Act violations as well as state law misappropriation and other claims, and seeking damages in excess of $100
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, et al. v. Philip Morris USA (Appeal)
Philip Morris USA Inc.
On December 15, 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Price v. Philip Morris USA Inc., reversing a Madison County circuit court''s $10.1 billion judgment against client Philip Morris USA and directing entry of judgment for the company. The Price class action alleged that by marketing Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights as light, and Marlboro Lights as having lowered tar and nicotine, Philip Morris USA violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Acts because the cigarettes did not deliver lowered tar and nicotine to smokers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archer Daniels Midland Company v. UOP LLC
UOP
ADM claimed that UOP''s sale to it of molecular sieves, used in removing water from ethanol, breached certain implied warranties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ministry of Defense /Aircraft Carrier CLEMENCEAU
Ministère des Finances
Attorneys in Winston & Strawn''s Paris office represented the French Ministry of Defense in connection with the removal of the famed French aircraft carrier CLEMENCEAU from French waters to India for dismantling. Since April 2005, four environmental organizations, including Greenpeace and Ban Asbestos, have launched multiple legal actions before every conceivable French tribunal to oppose the departure of the ship for dismantling. The organizations argued that under the Basel Convention, the CLEMENCEAU is considered a hazardous waste because it contains asbestos and therefore should be denied export to India. The firm represented the Ministry of Defense in all these legal actions and has won all six of the litigation matters brought before
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katz, et al. v. Midas International
Midas International Corporation
Winston & Strawn obtained a significant victory for Midas International Corporation when a Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court judge denied a motion for class certification, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the legal prerequisites to maintain a Maryland class action. This was the latest in a series of plaintiff?s attempts to obtain class action status. The original complaint was brought as a putative nationwide class action that was later withdrawn and amended to a statewide class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
LSQ Funding Group L.C. v. JetGlobal LLC
JetGlobal, Inc.
Winston & Strawn attorneys won a motion to dismiss on behalf of JetGlobal LLC in a lawsuit brought by LSQ Funding Group L.C. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for the alleged breach of a letter-proposal signed by both parties. LSQ was attempting to enforce an origination fee provision following the parties? failed negotiations for an asset-based financing facility. Our attorneys argued that the proposal disclaimed any binding intent and therefore could not possibly constitute a fee agreement between the parties. The judge agreed and dismissed the case in its entirety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italian Distributor v. Public Technology Company
Winston & Strawn obtained a complete victory on behalf of a public technology company in an arbitration in San Francisco brought by our client''s Italian distributor claiming breach of distribution agreement and substantial damages. The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs chose our client''s products for its security/firewall needs in connection with the Ministry''s network connecting Italian embassies in more than 500 sites around the world. Our client''s Italian distributor felt it should have been part of this large deal, although the Ministry ultimately chose another of our client''s European distributors. The arbitrator found for our client, awarding no damages to the plaintiff as well as awarding our client 90 percent of its attorney
|
|
|
|
|
|
Engle v. Philip Morris USA
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Philip Morris USA and other tobacco companies won a landmark decision in the Engle appeal when Florida?s intermediate appellate court overturned the largest money judgment in history?-$145 billion in punitive damages awarded to an estimated class of 700,000 Florida smokers?ordered decertification of the class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al.
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Philip Morris USA in this case in which the government alleged that the defendant manufacturers had engaged in a 50-year-long scheme to defraud the American public about the health risks of smoking, for which it sought equitable relief under RICO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Technology Company v. Fortune 500 Company
Winston & Strawn represented a Fortune 500 client in a protracted three-year breach of contract lawsuit brought by an international technology company on behalf of itself and its U.S. distributor related to our client?s cancellation of purchase orders during the technology economic downturn. Our client brought a counterclaim against the plaintiff for its failure to meet contracted-for delivery and quality requirements. The plaintiffs? claims started in the low-million-dollar range and escalated to $4 million as the litigation progressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Executive v. F.J. Sciame Construction Co.
F.J. Sciame Construction Co.
Winston & Strawn represents F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc. in an action brought in the Southern District of New York by one of its former executives for breach of an alleged oral contract. The plaintiff claims that our client entered into an oral agreement with him in 1997 to share the profits of the division of the company he headed on a 50/50 basis. The plaintiff resigned without notice in December 2004 and demanded the immediate payment of all profits to which he claimed he was owed under the alleged oral agreement. The case settled prior to trial in October 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historic Front Street Project Litigation
F.J. Sciame Construction Co.
Winston & Strawn currently represents F.J. Sciame Construction and certain of its affiliates in a lawsuit brought by the Durst Organization related to the Historic Front Street Project, a major commercial/residential real estate project in downtown Manhattan. Sciame is the construction manager on the project and also has an ownership interest in the owner/developer. Durst is a member of the owner/developer. In connection with this matter, our attorneys are handling both litigation and arbitration proceedings, which involve claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rochester Medical Corporation v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.
C.R. Bard, Inc. - Chicago
Winston & Strawn represented C.R. Bard, the largest-selling manufacturer of indwelling (Foley) catheters in the United States, in an antitrust lawsuit brought by Rochester Medical Corporation, a niche manufacturer of silicone Foley catheters. Tyco, along with Premier and Novation, the two largest hospital group purchasing organizations (GPOs) in the medical device industry, were co-defendants in this case. Rochester alleged that the defendants had conspired to exclude Rochester from the market for urological catheters, including the market for infection control catheters. Rochester claimed it had created an infection control Foley catheter that was superior to catheters offered by Bard and Tyco in reducing urinary tract infections. Rocheste
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mikolajczyk v. Ford
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company hired Winston & Strawn as appellate counsel in Mikolajczyk v. Ford, one of the 75 largest verdicts in the nation in 2005. The $27 million verdict arose from a strict product liability design defect case involving the front seat of a 1996 Ford Escort. The plaintiff was killed when a drunk driver rear-ended his Ford Escort at 55 miles per hour. The plaintiff (through his wife as administrator) sued the driver for negligence and Ford for strict product liability, alleging that the design of the seat, which yielded backward due to the forces of the accident, contributed to his death. The appeal, before the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, raised significant issues about design defect law. Winston & Strawn prevailed i
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Winston & Strawn was retained by Cisco Systems, Inc. to act as trial counsel for Cisco and 12 of its current or past executives and directors in defense of a nationwide securities fraud class action filed in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff-class was composed of all those who purchased Cisco securities between November 10, 1999 and February 6, 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants inflated the price of Cisco stock during the class period by, among other things, issuing overly optimistic earnings forecasts and engaging in improper accounting practices. The lawsuit asserted securities fraud claims in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and insider tradi
|
|
|
|
|
|
In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1426
PPG Industries, Inc.
Winston & Strawn was retained by PPG Industries as national counsel in numerous antitrust class actions around the country involving allegations of price-fixing in the automotive refinishing paint industry, including 68 cases that were consolidated in federal court in Philadelphia, as well as class actions filed in state courts in California, Maine, Tennessee, Vermont, and Massachusetts. The complaints generally alleged that PPG engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with other manufacturers of refinishing paint, including The Sherwin-Williams Company, BASF Corporation, DuPont Performance Coatings, Inc., and Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. The class plaintiffs sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Winston vigorously defended the claims
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fireman''s Fund Insurance Co. v. Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management, Inc., et al.; Kaitlyn Agency, Inc., et al. v. Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management, Inc.
Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management Inc
A Winston & Strawn litigation team of New York office attorneys secured a favorable settlement on behalf of Cunningham Lindsey Claims Management, Inc. in an action brought by Fireman''s Fund Insurance Company in the Eastern District of New York involving claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. After extensive fact and expert discovery, which included over 30 depositions, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation granting our client''s motion for summary judgment on Fireman''s Fund''s claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Facing a trial limited to its breach of contract claim, Fireman''s Fund agreed to settle the matter for
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Foreign Trade Council, et al. v. Giannoulias
National Foreign Trade Council Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented the National Foreign Trade Council, eight municipal fire and police pension funds, and eight individual beneficiaries of public pension funds in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 2005 Illinois Act to End Atrocities and Terrorism in the Sudan (the Illinois Sudan Act). The Act prohibited the deposit of Illinois state funds in any financial institution failing to certify that neither it nor any of its borrowers did business related to the country of Sudan. It also prohibited public pension funds from investing in any company that has direct or indirect commercial connections to that country. Winston attorneys argued that the Illinois Sudan Act intruded on the federal government?s exclusive power o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biovail Laboratories Inc. v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Anchen Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in a lawsuit brought by Biovail Laboratories, Inc. in the Central District of California alleging infringement of patents covering Biovail''s antidepressant WELLBUTRIN XL following Anchen?s submission of an FDA application to sell a generic version of the drug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capgemini U.S. LLC v. Arentowicz
Capgemini North America Inc.
Winston & Strawn attorneys represented Capgemini in an American Arbitration Association proceeding involving an age discrimination claim brought by a former highly compensated vice president seeking $8 million in damages (based on his expert report). The plaintiff alleged that his termination, after 20 years at the company and its predecessor in interest, could only have been because of his age. He alleged that Capgemini engaged in systemic discrimination of those in their 50s. The AAA panel found in Capgemini?s favor, dismissing the employee?s claim in its entirety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cozzi v. Metal Management, Inc.
Albert Cozzi, Frank Cozzi and Gregory Co
Winston & Strawn represented Albert Cozzi (former CEO), Frank Cozzi (former president), and Greg Cozzi (former vice-president) in a non-compete case against their former employer, Metal Management, Inc. A separation and release agreement provided for two severance payments to the Cozzis in exchange for certain non-compete and non-solicitation provisions for an 18-month period. The Cozzis received the first severance payment in January 2004. Shortly before the expiration of the 18-month period when a second payment was due, Metal Management filed a lawsuit alleging the Cozzis engaged in conduct that breached their fiduciary duties while employed as former officers of the company and breached the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marsulex Corp. v. Trelleborg AB, et al.
Marsulex, Inc.
The firm represented Marsulex Corp. in its April 2007 arbitration hearing in New York in which our client claimed damages of $40 million arising out of its 1998 acquisition of assets from Swedish company Trelleborg AB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legg Mason Securities Arbitration
Legg Mason & Co. LLC
Winston & Strawn represented asset management firm Legg Mason in a lawsuit brought by the beneficiaries of three separate trusts alleging breach of contract, negligence, failure to supervise, suitability, breach of fiduciary duty, and misrepresentations and omissions. The claimants sought $6 million in actual damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages. Prior to his death in 2002, the trustee of the trust at issue had bought and sold well over $50 million of securities. His daughter, a beneficiary of the trust, brought the case alleging that her father never would have invested in such risky securities. After eight days of arbitration hearings, a three-judge NASD arbitration panel dismissed all claims with prejudice against Legg M
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Boler Company and Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems v. Cooper Tire and Cooper Standard Automotive
Boler Company The
Winston & Strawn represented client The Boler Company in a dispute with Cooper Tire related to component parts Cooper provided to Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems, a Boler subsidiary. Our client claimed that the components failed to meet the warranty requirements and contract terms. Prior to filing a lawsuit, the parties mediated the dispute, and a favorable settlement was obtained for our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. USGen New England, Inc.
National Energy & Gas Transmission
Winston & Strawn secured a favorable litigation outcome for client USGen New England, Inc. in a $41 million claim filed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline arising from USGen?s rejection in bankruptcy of a long-term gas transportation contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect 10 v. Google Inc.
Google, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Google Inc. in a copyright, trademark, and publicity law challenge alleging direct, contributory, and vicarious liability theories brought by Perfect 10, a Web site and magazine publisher. Perfect 10 claimed that Google''s method of providing Web searches and image searches to the public, as well as its practice of selling advertising space tied to key words used by consumers in searches, are a violation of the copyright, trademark, and publicity rights claimed by Perfect 10. Our attorneys defended against Perfect 10''s motion for a broad preliminary injunction. Google prevailed on most grounds but the District Court found for Perfect 10 on one ground. In November 2006, one of our attorneys argued for Google bef
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nucor v. Wausau
Nucor Corporation
A San Francisco-based Winston trial team obtained a jury verdict in Arizona state court on behalf of client Nucor, one of the largest steel companies in the country, against insurer Wausau. The case arose out of Nucor's defense and settlement of underlying environmental/toxic tort litigation in the 1990s that cost our client $45 million. For many years, insurers only paid a portion of Nucor's defense. Nucor sued to recover its remaining defense expenses, as well as settlement expenses, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees. Prior to the recent trial, we recovered $25 million in insurer reimbursements, and the jury verdict against Wausau cleared the way for the potential recovery of another $14 million for our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alstom Power, Inc. v. BBF Inc. (f/k/a Balcke Durr, Inc.)
ALSTOM HOLDINGS
Winston & Strawn represented Alstom in this contract dispute that arose out of design/build subcontracts for major power plant equipment. Alstom contracted with BBF to supply and install air-cooled condensers for power plants in Bellingham, Massachusetts, and Midlothian, Texas. The contract allowed for liquidated damages if the condensers did not meet certain performance guarantees. Other issues in dispute involved responsibility for work scope changes and cost and schedule overruns. The parties agreed that the outcome of all disputes would be determined by arbitration. Winston obtained a $3.5 million award for Alstom and defeated BBF?s $8 million counterclaim. The award was confirmed by a Richmond, Virginia, circuit court on March 20, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime Group Realty Trust Shareholder Class Action
Prime Group Realty Trust
Winston & Strawn represented Prime Group Realty Trust (PGRT) and its controlling shareholder, The Lightstone Group, in a class action brought in Maryland state court by the Series B preferred shareholders of PGRT. The shareholders asserted claims of breach of contract against PGRT and claims of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against Lightstone. The shareholders sought to recover a $100 million Liquidation Preference, alleging that this Preference was owed to them as part of the constructive liquidation of PGRT''s assets and winding up of its business. In September 2007, the court granted PGRT and Lightstone''s motion to dismiss the shareholders'' complaint, with prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verizon Communications, et al. v. Vonage Holdings, et al.
Verizon Communications
Winston client Verizon Communications sued Vonage, the largest provider of voice over internet service in the United States, alleging that Vonage had infringed several of Verizon?s patents, including those related to connecting calls to ordinary phone lines, features such as call forwarding, and the use of Wi-Fi networks for internet-phone service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. v. Richard G. Convertino
NonBillable/NonProBono Matters
Winston & Strawn successfully defended former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino against federal charges related to his handling of a 2003 case against four men accused of running a terrorist sleeper cell in Detroit. Convertino was the lead prosecutor in the case, which resulted in convictions of two of the men. A federal judge later tossed out the convictions after the U.S. Department of Justice discovered exculpatory evidence that it claimed had not been turned over by Convertino. The DOJ brought charges against Convertino in March 2006 alleging conspiracy, subordination of perjury, and obstruction of justice. After a three-week trial in which Winston attorneys argued on behalf of Convertino, the jury found him innocent of all charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francis J. McDonough v. W.H. Reaves & Co., Inc., NASD DR Case Number 06-02188
W.H. Reaves & Company Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented investment management company W.H. Reaves & Co., Inc. in a proceeding before a Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Dispute Resolution Arbitration Panel brought by the company''s former chief operating officer. The claimant sought damages based on his employment agreement, as well as an alleged oral agreement with the company''s chairman and (now former) chief executive officer, under theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, fraud, and violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The arbitration panel heard testimony from nine fact witnesses and two expert witnesses over eight days of hearings, after which both sides submitted closing briefs and presented closing argum
|
|
|
|
|
|
O''Keeffe''s Inc. v. Underwriters Laboratories
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is a lawsuit claiming unfair competition and fraud brought by O''Keeffe''s Inc. in the Northern District of California. O''Keeffe''s, a large manufacturer of fire resistant glazing, alleged that UL had unfairly sided with O''Keeffe''s competitors in UL''s testing of fire resistant glazing under UL safety standards. O''Keeffe''s sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; UL filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing, the Northern District of California issued an order denying O''Keeffe''s motion for preliminary injunction and granting UL''s motion to dismiss, with prejudice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old Orchard Urban Limited Partnership v. Harry Rosen, Inc.
Harry Rosen, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Harry Rosen, Inc., a Canadian corporation, in a contract lawsuit filed in Cook County, Illinois, by Old Orchard Urban Limited Partnership (Urban) seeking to enforce and collect on a default judgment entered against Specialty Stores, an indirect subsidiary of Harry Rosen. Urban obtained a $2.7 million default judgment in federal court against Specialty Stores relating to a lease of a store in the Old Orchard Shopping Center in Skokie, Illinois. After Specialty Stores failed to satisfy the judgment due to insolvency, Urban filed a lawsuit against Harry Rosen seeking to pierce the corporate veil and collect the default judgment plus post-judgment interest and attorneys fees for a total of more than $4 million. The
|
|
|
|
|
|
Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.
Veoh Networks, Inc.
Winston scored a major victory for its client Veoh in the Northern District of California. In a case of first impression, the court held that Veoh, a video sharing website, was entitled to the safe harbor from Io?s copyright claims under section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects online service providers that merely store content at the direction of their users. Io argued that Veoh was not merely storing user content, but converting the content into new formats and making it easy to locate. Io also argued that Veoh did not reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy, that Veoh should have known that Io?s content was on its service and infringing, and that Veoh had the ability to control infringement on its ser
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
Abbott Laboratories
Our attorneys secured a settlement for client Abbott Laboratories after a five-year patent litigation battle brought against Sandoz, Inc. involving Abbott's branded antibiotic known as BIAXIN XL®. Abbott sued Sandoz for patent infringement in 2005 when Sandoz sought to market a generic version. Abbott won a preliminary injunction against Sandoz, which was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit, and then won partial summary judgment. Abbott prepared to take the remainder of the case to trial, seeking $68 million in damages for an aborted 2006 product launch by Sandoz. Only two weeks before trial, the judge issued a series of favorable rulings on Abbott's evidentiary motions, resulting in Sandoz agreeing to a confidential last-minute settl
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Re: Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation
Amaranth Advisors L.L.C.
In a case closely watched by the financial industry, a Winston & Strawn team recently won a motion to dismiss ruling on behalf of our clients Amaranth Advisors, L.L.C. and Amaranth Advisors (Calgary) ULC (together, Amaranth), Amaranth Group Inc., Amaranth Management Limited Partnership, Amaranth Partners LLC and Amaranth Capital Partners LLC (the Other Amaranth Entities), in a class action commodities manipulation lawsuit. Plaintiffs claimed that Amaranth Advisors and the Other Amaranth Entities manipulated the NYMEX natural gas futures market from February through September 2006 by driving prices up because of their continuous large volume trading throughout the class period, as well as by driving prices down on three specific contract exp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Espinosa v. Philip Morris USA Inc., et al., 500 F. Supp. 2d 979 (N.D. Ill. 2007
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn scored a significant victory for Philip Morris USA Inc. in this putative national class action in which the plaintiff asserted various state law claims premised on allegations that defendants steadily and purposefully increased the nicotine level and absorption of their cigarettes into the human body in brands most popular with young people and minorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Plant Purchase Contract Dispute
Winston & Strawn represented a major diversified financial institution in a case filed in the District of Massachusetts involving the purchase of a power plant at the conclusion of a leveraged lease transaction. All material issues were decided in our client''s favor in a decision on cross-motions for summary judgment following a period of expedited discovery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billings, et al. v. British Petroleum
BP America, Inc.
We represented British Petroleum in a mass tort class action suit litigated in Los Angeles Superior Court brought by more than 400 individual plaintiffs who claimed that they were personally injured and suffered damages to their property arising out of BP’s operations of its Carson Refinery. Plaintiffs claimed BP committed unfair and fraudulent business practices and sought to certify both a medical monitoring and real property class. Plaintiffs claimed that BP operated the refinery negligently and allowed toxins to emit from the site causing them harm. The team got the class allegations stricken from the complaint, as well as plaintiffs’ hope for punitive damages and request for disgorgement of profits, all at the pleading stage. Additiona
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Anderson, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories
We represented Abbott Laboratories in a multi-million dollar, nationwide consumer putative class action lawsuit alleging that certain of Abbott's liquid infant formula products were packaged in metal cans lined with epoxy resins containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that if plaintiffs and the putative class had known of the alleged existence of Bisphenol-A in the packaging of Abbott's liquid infant formula products sold in metal cans, they would not have purchased such products. Initially filed in the Central District of California, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for coordination of pretrial proceedings with several additional lawsu
|
|
|
|
|
|
UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - I
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
A group of dissident pilots filed this $140 million ADEA and ERISA suit against United and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) alleging that United?s pilot-defined benefit pension plan was age discriminatory, violated ERISA benefit accrual and fiduciary standards, and failed to refund employee contributions and to give full credit under the plan for all years of service of its older pilots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alday v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented JSC in a nationwide class action lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of salaried retirees who claimed that the company's changes to and increases in the cost charged for retiree medical benefits violated, inter alia, ERISA. After extensive discovery and briefs on the issue, the court refused to permit the plaintiffs to proceed with class-wide claims on issues relating to alleged oral and written representations concerning how retiree benefits would be treated. We succeeded in having the class decertified by taking scores of class member depositions-the members’ disparate understanding of their rights deprived the class representatives of key Rule 23 prerequisites. The surviving class claims of breach of fiducia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gardner v. Container Corporation of America, et al.
Container Corporation of America
We defended Container Corporation of America (CCA) against a plaintiff?s claims of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA after our client?s benefit plan administrator declined to provide the plaintiff with health insurance coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armstrong, et al. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corporation
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
This action was filed in Massachusetts District Court by two retirees who claimed that Jefferson Smurfit breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to advise them of the tax consequences of accepting lump-sum payments in exchange for discontinuing their health insurance benefits. The retirees sought reimbursement from the company for the income tax liabilities that resulted from their receipt of the cash payments. Winston & Strawn’s motion to dismiss was granted and the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson and Serment v. Brach's Confections
Brach's Confections, Inc.
We defended Brach in a case filed in the Northern District of Illinois in which the plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to substantive benefits due to Brach's alleged procedural violations of ERISA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. Deluxe Corp.
Deluxe Corporation
We represented Deluxe in an ERISA class action in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the company’s failure to pay severance benefits after the sale of a business unit. The plaintiffs claimed breach of fiduciary duty, failure to pay benefits, Section 510 discrimination, fraud, and estoppel. We won summary judgment for our client on all counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friz v. Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
We represented Marsh & McLennan in an ERISA class action suit in which the plaintiffs sought millions of dollars in damages in connection with the administration of a severance pay plan. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment, dismissing the suit against our client.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perrin J. Pinta v. Pharmacia Corporation
Pfizer Inc.
Our attorneys represented a Pharmacia in an administrative hearing before the Department of Labor involving claims for severance pay, pro rata bonus amounts and vacation pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clingerman v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp.
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation
Winston & Strawn represented Smurfit-Stone Container in a commercial arbitration in July 2002 involving claims for high-level executive severance and bonus pay following a merger change in control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black & Decker v. Nord
Stanley Black & Decker
The firm secured a 9-0 victory from the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Black & Decker in an ERISA matter. The plaintiff, an employee of subsidiary Kwikset, ceased working due to a back injury and submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits under the company-sponsored disability plan. An independent physician’s exam determined that the plaintiff’s disability was not the result of his regular job, and his claim was denied. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Black & Decker breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiff. Our client appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court held that ERISA does not require plan administrators to give special deference to t
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tice v. American Airlines
American Airlines
After a seven-year battle waged through the federal trial and appellate courts, our attorneys secured dismissal of an ADEA class action filed by former pilots against client American Airlines, Inc. for alleged discrimination in disallowing their job bids to flight engineer positions. In response to American's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs made various assertions of rights under the applicable labor agreement as the underlying basis of their ADEA claim. American seized the opportunity to move to dismiss because contract-backed claims in the airline industry are the exclusive province of arbitral panels mandated by the Railway Labor Act. The Seventh Circuit decided to stay rather than dismiss the case, and the matter proceeded t
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hammond v. Wise Alloys
Wise Metals Group LLC
The firm won a motion to dismiss an ERISA class action suit brought against client Wise Alloys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cokenour v. Household International, Inc., et al.
Household Interntional - Board of Direct
The firm represented Household International in a national class action brought in the Northern District of Illinois against our client alleging violations of ERISA related to the investment of plan assets in Company stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peggy Hawkins-Dean v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Our attorneys were successful on behalf of MetLife in having the United States Supreme Court vacate and remand a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an ERISA disability benefits case. Our attorneys represented MetLife, administrator of Robert Half International?s long-term health and disability plan, in case brought by a Robert Half employee. The Ninth Circuit held that MetLife should have included the amount the employee earned from stock options in her disability benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paulsen v. CNF, Inc. et al.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PB
Winston & Strawn attorneys represented the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. PBGC won summary judgment on the pleadings that a plaintiff could not bring such an action under Title I of ERISA against PBGC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blackwell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc.
SkyWest Airlines Inc.
Winston & Strawn secured a significant victory for SkyWest Airlines, Inc. when the Southern District of California denied a former employees motion for class certification in a case filed as a wage and hour class action. The plaintiff asked the Southern District Court of California to certify a class of nearly 4,000 current and former SkyWest customer service agents in California into five subclasses, one for each of her various claims. The plaintiff alleged the airline violated state and federal laws by denying meal breaks, issuing inaccurate wage statements, imposing unlawful alternative workweek schedules resulting in unpaid overtime, refusing to pay overtime for voluntary shift trades, and deducting wages to pay for travel benefits with
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court Experience
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal and State Court Experience
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Arbitration - Commercial Disputes
The firm's international arbitration practice has acted for clients in a wide variety of commercial or contract disputes, both large and medium-sized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance Coverage Litigation Matters
A significant aspect of Winston & Strawn's litigation practice involves the representation of insureds seeking coverage from their insurance carriers for defense and indemnity arising from claims involving a wide range of matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Industry Litigation and Investigations
Winston & Strawn is a premier national litigation firm with extensive experience in litigation involving the energy industry. This includes administrative matters before the NRC and FERC, as well as commercial matters, international arbitrations, and, even more specifically, energy infrastructure construction litigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction Litigation
Our attorneys have litigated complex construction cases in every conceivable forum, including state and federal courts, industry arbitration panels, international arbitrations, federal and state boards of contract appeals, as well as numerous ADR procedures and mediations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health Care Fraud and Abuse Experience
Winston & Strawn have represented numerous health care clients in criminal and civil investigations involving fraud and abuse and related claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toxic Tort Matters
We have a broad civil and criminal litigation practice in defense of toxic tort and environmental claims alleging both bodily injury and property damage. These include individual claims as well as mass torts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Internal Investigations
Our attorneys have conducted investigations and represented clients in grand jury matters and criminal trials involving a range of issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grand Jury Matters
Our attorneys have conducted investigations and represented clients in grand jury matters and criminal trials involving a range of issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maritime Litigation Matters
Winston & Strawn litigators have conducted major jury trials in virtually every federal district in the United States, and in special tribunals including the U.S. Claims Court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, and the U.S. Tax Court. Furthermore, Winston & Strawn has represented clients in appeals before the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media Litigation Matters
Winston & Strawn’s media litigation attorneys have experience representing publishing companies, newspapers, broadcasting companies, reporters, and authors in a range of defamation and invasion of privacy matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Liability Litigation Matters
Winston & Strawn attorneys have experience representing parties in connection with a variety of professional liability claims. This work includes our representation of several major law firms, accounting firms, and consulting firms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Select A Region
Search for an attorney.
