Site Search
Professionals 545 results
Capabilities 81 results
Practice Area
Our nationally recognized Appellate & Critical Motions (ACM) Practice delivers sophisticated legal advocacy and analysis before trial, at trial, and on appeal. From state trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, our ACM attorneys identify, preserve, and present the critical legal issues that can make the difference between winning and losing.
Practice Area
Trial skills matter—even in a world where few disputes ever see the inside of a courtroom. Winston has built a reputation as a trial lawyers’ firm, featuring seasoned litigators who leverage extensive courtroom experience to meet our clients’ business and legal objectives. Our long history of taking cases to trial—and winning—provides our clients with tremendous settlement leverage with their adversaries, as well as a substantial likelihood of a favorable resolution if, and when, they go to trial.
Practice Area
Winston is a global powerhouse in the financial restructuring space. We offer a fully integrated team of attorneys across a global platform to guide clients through any distressed situation, whether the client is a savvy and interested investor, a creditor seeking to maximize its recovery, or a company aiming to proceed through a successful yet complex restructuring. We have advised stakeholders in some of the highest-profile restructurings and bankruptcy cases in the United States and beyond, including Caesars Entertainment, ResCap, the Los Angeles Dodgers, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Pacific Gas & Electric, LATAM Airlines, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, among others.
Experience 54 results
Experience
|September 8, 2025
Winston represents a class of professional swimmers alleging World Aquatics (WA) violated antitrust laws by blocking their participation in the competing International Swimming League. After WA won summary judgment, Winston successfully appealed, arguing the court applied improper antitrust standards and wrongly denied certification of a damages class. In September 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed both rulings, reviving all claims and issuing a landmark ruling on the possible application of the per se rule or quick look review to sports-associations rules. Am Law awarded Winston “Litigator of the Week” Runner-Up recognition for the win. In November 2024, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing. In April 2025, the district court certified a damages class.
Experience
|July 30, 2025
Represent Norman W. Fries, Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms in a series of 15+ antitrust class actions consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois and brought by plaintiffs who allege that Claxton and the nation’s other largest poultry producers conspired to fix the price of broiler chickens in a scheme from 2008 to 2016 that raised the price for broiler chickens by artificially reducing supply.
Experience
|June 8, 2025
Secured, with co-counsel, final approval of an historic settlement of over US$2.75B in back-damages for current and former college-athletes and a new revenue-sharing model allowing schools to share future earnings with athletes. This decade-long effort across four different lawsuits redefines the economics of college sports, affirming athlete rights and fair compensation. Following a 9-0 Supreme Court victory in Alston v. NCAA, the team filed three antitrust class actions, resulting in a groundbreaking settlement that creates a revenue-sharing system projected to generate at least US$20B in new, previously prohibited payments and benefits to Division I college athletes over the next decade. The settlement was recognized in Am Law‘s Litigator of the Week column.
Insights & News 3,066 results
Seminar/CLE
|January 22, 2026
14th ITA-IEL-ICC Joint Conference on International Energy Arbitration – Houston
Imad Khan is a proud Co-Chair of The Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), Institute for Energy Law (IEL) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court of Arbitration 14th edition of what has become the premier conference on international arbitration in the energy sector. Speakers from around the globe and across the industry will gather to focus on the key issues in the field today.
Capital Markets & Securities Law Watch
|November 18, 2025
|3 Min Read
In an address delivered on November 12, 2025 at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) Chairman Paul S. Atkins outlined the next phase of the SEC’s “Project Crypto,” advocating for clarity and fairness in the regulation of digital assets.
In the Media
|November 14, 2025
|1 Min Read
Daniel Stabile Discusses Pressing Issues for Incoming CFTC Chair with Law.com
Winston & Strawn partner Daniel Stabile spoke with Law.com to discuss prediction markets, collaboration with the SEC, and other issues that the incoming Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chair will face in the new role following President Trump’s nomination of Michael Selig to the position.
Other Results 51 results
Site Content
What Is a Delaware Corporation?
A Delaware corporation is a company that is formed in the state of Delaware but can conduct business anywhere. Incorporating in Delaware has become widespread among large U.S. companies, including more than half of the S&P 500.
Law Glossary
Removal is a procedural mechanism through which a case filed in state court may be transferred to federal court upon the request of one or more parties. Actions filed in state court over which a federal court would have original jurisdiction may be transferred—or removed—to federal court under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Generally speaking, removal is possible if (1) the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are citizens of different states and the case places more than $75,000 in controversy (so-called “diversity” jurisdiction), or (2) the case turns on issues of federal law (so-called “federal question” jurisdiction). In many cases, defendants prefer to be in federal court, and so defendants often analyze early in the case whether removal is possible.
Site Content
The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988, prohibits videotape service providers from disclosing a customer’s personal information without express consent. Originally, the term “video tape service provider” targeted brick-and-mortar video rental stores as the statute was created in response to the public disclosure of a Supreme Court nominee's rental history.