small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
Site Search
  • Professionals (235)
  • Capabilities (78)
  • Experience (8)
  • Insights & News (1,993)
  • Other Results (52)

Professionals 235 results

Eva Cole
Eva Cole
Partner
  • New York
Email
+1 212-294-4609
vCard

Partner

  • New York
Eleni Kouimelis
Eleni Kouimelis
Partner
  • Chicago
Email
+1 312-558-5133
vCard

Partner

  • Chicago
Peter Crowther
Peter Crowther
International Managing Partner
  • London, 
  • Brussels
Email
+44 20 7011 8750
vCard

International Managing Partner

  • London
  • Brussels
View All Professionals

Capabilities 78 results

Practice Area

Environmental Litigation & Enforcement

With today’s rapidly evolving rules of engagement, paired with the often contentious nature of environmental disputes, clients rely on Winston for our practical experience and substantive knowledge of the broad-ranging issues involved in environmental litigation, enforcement, and investigations....Read more

Practice Area

Antitrust/Competition

Industry

Energy Regulatory & FERC

Winston & Strawn’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) & Energy Regulatory Practice bring decades of experience counseling on transactional, regulatory, investigation, and enforcement and litigation matters....Read more

Experience 8 results

Experience

|

May 10, 2024

Winston Establishes the Enforceability of Keepwell Bonds in Significant Hong Kong Court of Appeal Victory

Winston’s London Restructuring practice scores a significant win on appeal for Hong Kong and BVI liquidator claimants in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) based Peking University Founders Group Limited (PUFG) insolvency. ...Read more

Experience

|

January 18, 2024

NuVasive's Claims Dismissed: Alphatec Spine Wins Jury Verdict

NuVasive sued Winston client Alphatec Spine—a competing spine surgery device company—for tortiously interfering with NuVasive’s business relationships with its exclusive distributors and sales representatives. We secured an early advantage pre-trial when the court ruled that California law applied to NuVasive’s claims, even though the distributors and sales representatives worked in North Carolina, Florida, and Massachusetts. Because noncompete agreements are not enforceable under California law, NuVasive was prevented from basing its interference claims on interference with its unenforceable sales representative noncompete agreements. As a result, the issues at trial focused on whether Alphatec interfered with NuVasive’s fixed-term exclusive distributorship agreements. After several days of argument on pretrial motions, trial began on November 27, 2023, and concluded on January 18, 2024, when Winston won a very favorable jury verdict against plaintiff’s claims....Read more

Experience

|

October 1, 2023

Class Action Plaintiff Sent Packing After Winston Secures Enforcement of Binance’s Terms of Use

A Winston team secured a decisive victory for a major cryptocurrency exchange (and provided a potential roadmap for other online businesses seeking to enforce arbitration clauses in their terms of service) this week when a federal judge granted a motion to compel arbitration....Read more
View All Experience

Insights & News 1,993 results

Recognitions

|

February 12, 2026

|

1 Min Read

Winston Recognized in Chambers Global 2026

Winston & Strawn was recognized in Chambers Global 2026. Chambers & Partners is a prominent UK-based publishing organization that ranks lawyers and law firms based on robust editorial research and direct conversations with lawyers and clients....Read more

Winston’s Environmental Law Update

|

February 11, 2026

|

7 Min Read

Packaging EPR Regulations Sputter, as Preliminary Injunction is Issued for Oregon’s Law, while California Again Withdraws its Proposed Implementing Regulations

Seven states have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws related to single-use packaging and plastic food serviceware, with other states considering similar legislation. The intent of these laws is to hold the producers of covered materials financially responsible for their ultimate disposal. Certain states are also requiring the reduction of plastic or non-recyclable plastic used in these materials over time. Legislation is in various stages of implementation, and Oregon is the first state to issue fees to producers. In connection with a legal challenge to Oregon’s EPR program, a court recently granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Oregon from enforcing the law against the plaintiff (an industry group) pending resolution of the case. Meanwhile, CalRecycle continues to struggle with finalizing its proposed regulations implementing California’s EPR law, this time withdrawing its proposed regulations to tinker with provisions related to food and agricultural commodities.

Competition Corner

|

February 9, 2026

|

9 Min Read

Ninth Circuit Rules U.S. Antitrust Law Applies to Ex-U.S. Sales When Contract Negotiated in the U.S.

On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed U.S. company Seagate Technology LLC and its foreign entities—Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore—to move forward with their claims against Japanese company NHK Spring Co., Ltd. under United States antitrust (i.e., competition) laws. 

View All Insights & News

Other Results 52 results

Law Glossary

What Is the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team?

The National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET) is part of the DOJ’s Criminal Division. It is to identify, investigate, support, and pursue cases involving the criminal use of digital assets, with a particular focus on virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, infrastructure providers, and other entities that are enabling the misuse of cryptocurrency and related technologies to commit or facilitate criminal activity....Read more

Site Content

The Corporate Transparency Act
Task Force

Site Content

What Is the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)?

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) “establishes a rebuttable presumption that the importation of any goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China, or produced by certain entities, is prohibited by Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that such goods, wares, articles, and merchandise are not entitled to entry to the United States”... “The UFLPA also requires the interagency Forced Labor Enforcement Task Force, chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and Director of National Intelligence, to develop and submit to Congress a strategy for supporting CBP’s enforcement of Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to goods, wares, articles, and merchandise produced with forced labor in the People’s Republic of China.”...Read more
Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2026. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising