Site Search
Professionals 466 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 57 results
Experience
|March 4, 2026
End of the Line: Winston Wins Unanimous Supreme Court Victory Against NJ Transit
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court held that NJ Transit is not an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore is not entitled to sovereign immunity. The ruling means that plaintiffs injured by NJ Transit outside of New Jersey—such as in Pennsylvania and New York—may pursue claims in the courts of the states where their injuries occurred. The court adopted Winston’s position that state-created corporations that are formally liable for their own judgments are not arms of the state, reversing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s dismissal of Cedric Galette’s negligence suit while affirming the New York Court of Appeals’ decision allowing Jeffrey Colt’s case to proceed.
Experience
|February 22, 2026
Winston & Strawn LLP Paris advised the Compagnie Européenne de Garantie et Caution (CEGC, BPCE Group) financial creditors on the adoption of Réalités’ recovery plan by the Nantes Commercial Court.
Experience
|January 27, 2026
Winston & Strawn secured a decisive victory for PayPal in an intellectual property dispute brought by Irish non-practicing entity Internet Payment Patents LTD (IPPL). Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen of the Northern District of California entered final judgment in PayPal’s favor, finding all asserted patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granting PayPal’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Insights & News 2,874 results
In the Media
|March 16, 2026
|1 Min Read
Logan Payne Discusses Tenth Circuit Master Account Ruling with The National Law Journal
Logan Payne was quoted in The National Law Journal discussing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in which a majority of active judges voted against rehearing a dispute between Custodia Bank and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors over whether regional Federal Reserve banks have broad discretion to deny so-called master accounts—a critical gateway to the U.S. payments system.
In the Media
|March 6, 2026
|1 Min Read
Amelia Garza-Mattia Discusses VPPA Consumer Definition Case with Law360
Winston & Strawn's Amelia Garza-Mattia, senior associate in the firm's Global Privacy & Data Security Practice, was quoted in a Law360 article discussing what to expect in oral arguments for the Salazar v. Paramount Global U.S. Supreme Court case. The case asks the justices to consider what criteria consumers need to meet in order to sue under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), a law enacted in 1988 that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of certain personal information belonging to “consumers” that rent, purchase, or subscribe to “goods and services from a video tape service provider,” and whether that statute applies to a consumer who doesn’t directly subscribe to audiovisual goods or services.
In the Media
|March 4, 2026
|1 Min Read
Suzanne Labi Discusses Current State of UK Class Actions with the Law Society Gazette
Winston & Strawn partner Suzanne Labi was quoted in an article featured in the latest edition of the Law Society Gazette, highlighting the role of the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal and class actions as a mechanism for enforcing consumer rights.
Other Results 47 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.
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.
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.