|
Services Available
Our litigation practice is led by veteran trial lawyers who collectively have tried hundreds of cases, including internationally recognized litigator Dan Webb, who has been hailed as “one of the country’s most sought-after lawyers” by The American Lawyer. The depth and experience of our litigation practice is further evidenced by the fact it includes:
- more than 40 partners who have tried cases to verdict in the past two years
- five Fellows of The American College of Trial Lawyers
- nearly 20 partners who are former prosecutors with U.S. Attorney's Offices in New York, Illinois, California, and other states, including two former U.S. Attorneys
- more than 100 attorneys who have been judicial clerks, working at the Supreme Court, U.S. courts of appeals, U.S. district courts, U.S. bankruptcy courts, U.S. tax courts, and state courts
We also provide value to our litigation clients through our firm's commitment to using state-of-the-art hardware and software in innovative ways to improve the efficiency and quality of our legal services on a continuous basis. For example, Winston & Strawn has developed considerable capabilities in the strategic, tactical, and technical aspects of the electronic discovery process in order to help our litigation clients navigate this rapidly changing area. We also can provide litigation clients with private, secure, customizable “extranets” for their immediate and direct access to essential case information such as pleadings, key discovery documents, and case calendars. Winston & Strawn has been a pioneering law firm in the extranet arena, and we have hundreds of extranet sites in active use today.
Representative Matters
General Electric Capital Corporation v. Future Media Productions, Inc.
General Electric Capital Corporation
On July 3, 2008, Winston & Strawn won a Ninth Circuit appeal for GE Capital, reversing a loss at trial, in which GE Capital had been represented by another firm.
HealthSouth Securities Class Action
Ernst & Young
Winston & Strawn represents Ernst & Young (E&Y) in a securities class action pending in the Northern District of Alabama. Stockholders and bondholders of HealthSouth Corporation brought claims against E&Y under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act. E&Y was the outside auditor for HealthSouth, whose former officers have pled guilty to artificially inflating HealthSouth's income statement and balance sheet by several billion dollars. The plaintiffs claim E&Y's audit opinion letter to HealthSouth's board of directors, which was included in HealthSouth's Form 10Ks, was materially false or misleading. Winston & Strawn also represents E&Y in an arbitration against HealthSouth relating to E&Y's audit and HealthSou
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®.
Representative e-Discovery and Electronic Information Experience
Winston & Strawn's e-Discovery and Electronic Information practice group assists clients in simplifying the often complex world of electronic information in anticipation of and preparation for major litigation-oriented activities.
Rose v. The American Tobacco Co., et al.
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn attorneys, along with co-counsel, obtained a major victory for Philip Morris USA before the Appellate Division, First Department, New York's intermediate appellate court. In early 2005, after a two-and-half-month trial, a New York Supreme Court jury assessed $1.7 million in compensatory damages and $17 million in punitive damages against our client. The case was tried on the single theory that regular full-flavored cigarettes were defectively designed.
In re Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Litigation
The Falls Church
Winston & Strawn represents 11 former Episcopal congregations in litigation with the Episcopal Church over ownership of property used by the 11 congregations. On April 3, 2008 in an 83-page decision, a Virginia state court judge agreed that the congregations had the right to invoke a Virginia statute that gives local congregations the right to decide, by majority vote, which branch of a denomination to join in the event of a denominational division.
Caraco Pharmaceuticals v. Forest Laboratories
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Winston & Strawn represented Caraco Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceuticals, in a patent case involving 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. Caraco sought a declaratory judgment action from the district court stating that the ‘941 patent was invalid or not infringed, a requirement under the Hatch Waxman Act in order for Caraco to enter the market for generic Lexapro. 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 jurisdiction. The district court agreed and dismiss
Thomas G. Ong v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. Inc.
Goldman Sachs & Co.
We represent 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) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges 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 their entirety,
Barr Laboratories v. Bayer Schering
Barr Laboratories, Inc.
Winston & Strawn represented Barr Laboratories in a four-week bench trial in November and December 2007 before the U.S. District Court for the District Court of New Jersey in a patent case against Bayer Schering. The court held that the asserted claims of Bayer Schering's U.S. Patent No. 6,787,531 are invalid due to obviousness. The '531 patent covers the oral contraceptive pill marketed as Yasmin®, currently the largest selling oral contraceptive pill on the market with annual sales of approximately $322 million for the 12 months ending January 2005 (based on IMS sales data). This ruling allows Barr Laboratories to market and launch a generic version of Yasmin®. In addition, our client will receive 180 days of exclusivity under the Hatch W
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.
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
The Regents of The University of California, Abbott Molecular, Inc. and Abbot Laboratories, Inc. v. Dakocytomation California Inc.
Abbott Laboratories
In an appeal concerning a pioneering patent on DNA-based diagnostic technology, Winston & Strawn attorneys prevailed before the the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of our clients Abbott Laboratories and The Regents of the University of California.
Chamberlain Group v. Lear Corporation
Lear Corporation
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion reversing and vacating a preliminary injunction issued by the Northern District of Illinois against Winston & Strawn client Lear Corporation. The preliminary injunction had prohibited Lear from making and selling its Car2U universal garage door opener device, except under its existing contracts with General Motors.
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.
Shuffle Master Inc. v. VendingData Corporation
Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc.
On Friday, February 1, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to Winston & Strawn client Elixir Technologies (f/k/a VendingData Corp.), finding that the company's PokerOne Automatic Card Shuffler did not infringe patents held by Shuffle Master, Inc, (SMI), its main competitor.
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.
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 argumen
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
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.
U.S. v. Richard G. Convertino
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
United States v. Lawrence E. Warner and George H. Ryan, Sr.
Governor George H. Ryan
Winston & Strawn represented former Governor of Illinois George H. Ryan in his six-month jury trial on public corruption charges, including racketeering, mail fraud, and income tax fraud. The charges relate to actions he took while serving as Illinois Secretary of State and later as Governor. Ryan has been the subject of intense media scrutiny in connection with his pardon of 171 Illinois death row inmates while he was still governor and his indictment in 2003. In April 2006, Mr. Ryan was found guilty by a jury after five weeks of deliberations that saw two jurors excused and replaced by alternate jurors mid-way through the deliberation process.
Verizon Communications, et al. v. Vonage Holdings, et al.
Verizon Communications
Winston client Verizon Communications sued Vonage, the largest provider of voiceover 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.
Diaz-Ramos v. Hyundai
Hyundai Motor Company
A Winston & Strawn appellate team obtained an important ruling for client Hyundai Motor Company in a consumer class action brought under the laws of Puerto Rico.
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.
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.
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
Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement Matter
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn has been representing Philip Morris USA from April 2006 to the present in litigation with virtually all states over a payment dispute under the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the settling states and major American tobacco manufacturers. The manufacturers claim they are entitled to a reduction in their 2003 annual payments totaling over $1 billion (to be credited against future payments) based on the market-share growth of non-signatory manufacturers. The manufacturers contend that this dispute should be resolved in a single nationwide arbitration proceeding rather than in each of the 52 separate state and territorial courts that otherwise have jurisdiction over disputes arising under the MSA (as cont
Clinton v. Brown & Williamson Holdings Inc. and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn defended Philip Morris USA in this individual smoking and health action in which the wife of a deceased smoker brought suit seeking tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
Mulholland v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Winston & Strawn defended Philip Morris USA in this individual smoking and health action in which the wife of a deceased smoker brought suit seeking tens of millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
Perfect 10 v. VISA and MasterCard
MasterCard International Incorporated
Winston & Strawn represented MasterCard Inc. in a lawsuit brought by Perfect 10, a Web site and magazine publisher.
The Republic of Ecuador and Petroecuador v. ChevronTexaco Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company
Republic of Ecuador
Winston & Strawn represents The Republic of Ecuador and the Republic’s state oil and gas company, PetroEcuador, in a $6 billion claim against energy giant Chevron for massive pollution cleanup costs as the result of the drilling and production operations of Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) in the Oriente province of Ecuador from 1965 to 1992. Chevron countered by demanding AAA arbitration against Winston's clients in New York under U.S. law for contractual and extra-contractual indemnification of this potential multi-billion dollar liability. The contract at issue was a 1965 Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) between Texaco and Gulf Oil (assignors of PetroEcuador’s assigned interest), which was never adopted in writing by PetroEcuador, but
Alstom Power, Inc. v. BBF Inc. (f/k/a Balcke Durr, Inc.)
Alstom Group
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
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.
Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2007)
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
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 befor
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,
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
Arista Records et al v. Launch Media, Inc.
Yahoo! Inc.
Winston & Strawn client Launch Media, Inc. (now owned by Yahoo!, Inc.) operates LAUNCHcast, an internet radio Web site.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 a sma
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.
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
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
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
Abbott Laboratories v. Baxter, Inc.
Abbott Laboratories
For the past several years, W&S has represented Abbott Laboratories and Central Glass, Ltd. of Tokyo in connection with various patent and licensing matters regarding Abbott’s drug Ultane, an inhalant anesthetic. In 2003, the United State Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari brought by Baxter Healthcare and upheld a ruling by the Seventh Circuit in favor of Abbott, which precluded Baxter from using a generic version of the drug to compete with Abbott until the expiration of their contractual relationship in December 2005. We are also representing Abbott and Central Glass in related patent infringement matters against Baxter involving a patent our clients received in connection with the addition of an inhibitor to Ultane (need re
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.
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
Mikolajczyk v. Ford
Ford Motor Company
Ford Motor Company hired Winston & Strawn as appellate counsel in Mikolajczyk v. Ford, one of the 100 largest verdicts of 2005.
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
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.
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.
Moscow Office Representative Matters
Winston & Strawn's Moscow office has been focusing its practice in the areas of international capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, international arbitration, and litigation.
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.
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.
Daimler Chrysler Class Actions
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Our attorneys are defending DaimlerChrysler in consumer class action matters pending in various states involving contract, warranty, and common law as well as statutory fraud claims.
Nauman v. Abbott Laboratories
Abbott Laboratories
We currently represent Abbott in connection with a class action Section 510 claim arising out of Abbott’s spin-off of its Hospital Products Division. The putative class of approximately 10,000 employees allege that the spin-off was intended to interfere with their accrual of additional pension and retiree health benefits, as well as a breach of fiduciary duty.
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.
International Arbitration - Construction Disputes
The firm's international arbitration practice has represented parties in highly detailed construction and infrastructure project disputes.
International Arbitration - Large, Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes
Winston received seven mentions and was among the top 12 law firms in AmLaw’s 2005 “Arbitration Scorecard” of 100 major arbitration disputes.
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.
OPTi Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation
OPTi, Inc.
Winston & Strawn was retained by OPTi, a company that was formerly the leading manufacturer of core logic chipsets, in connection with its program to monetize its portfolio of patents. In October 2004, 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 in April 2006. The case settled in early August 2006, netting OPTi a lump sum payment of $11 million and commitment from NVIDIA to either abandon the technology or pay going-forward royalties. Since the date of the Markman, our client’s market capitalizatio
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 fees
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.
Bavaria International Aircraft Leasing GmbH & CoKG v. Lineas Aereas Azteca, S.A. de C.V.
Bavaria International Aircraft Leasing G
Winston & Strawn represented Bavaria International Aircraft Leasing, a major German aircraft leasing concern, in a claim against Lineas Aereas Azteca, a Mexican commercial airline, relating to the respondent’s non-performance of the terms of two Boeing 737 purchase agreements and to its unlawful continued possession and operation of the aircraft without paying compensation to the claimant. This dispute, which was tried in English and Spanish, involved a wide range of issues on procedural, substantive, and conflict of laws, under German and Mexican laws as well as ICC Rules of Arbitration. The ICC issued a final arbitral award granting Bavaria International Aircraft Leasing all of the relief it requested.
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.
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 attempts to obtain class action status. The original complaint was brought in December 2001 as a putative nationwide class action that was later withdrawn and amended to a statewide motion. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to money damages because Midas had devised a corporate scheme to deceive its customers by purportedly replacing lifetime warranties for labor with more limited warranties. In its ruling
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 t
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.
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
Evitts v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the dismissal of this putative national class action upon a motion on the pleadings for failure to plead knowledge of the alleged omission as of the time the named plaintiffs purchased their automobile.
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.
Nicholas Karris v. U.S. Equities Development
U.S. Equities Realty, Inc.
Winston & Strawn obtained summary judgment from the Circuit Court of Cook County for client U.S. Equities Development in its defense of a claim for specific performance under a real estate contract.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pelman v. McDonald's
Pelman is the famous “McDonald’s obesity case,” brought in federal court in New York on behalf of a putative class of minors in the state who alleged they became overweight and suffered related health conditions after eating McDonald’s food. Briefs written by Winston & Strawn twice won dismissal of the case and also secured additional limitations on it after a portion of it was reinstated on appeal. All of the plaintiffs’ surviving claims are brought under General Business Law section 349. Class discovery in the case is about to begin.
International Strategic Marketing Inc. v. Zenith International
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Our attorneys represented watchmaker Zenith International, a Swiss subsidiary of Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy, in connection with claims brought by International Strategic Marketing Inc. (ISMI).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Black & Decker v. Nord
Black & Decker
The firm secured a 9-0 victory from the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Black & Decker in an ERISA matter.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Apostolou v. Philip Morris USA
Philip Morris USA Inc.
Our attorneys obtained a significant victory in Apostolou. After a 2 1/2-month trial, a Brooklyn, New York, state court jury returned a defense verdict for Philip Morris in Apostolou, a case in which the plaintiff had sought to recover damages for alleged smoking-related injuries under the theories of product liability and fraud.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gilbert, et al. v. Ameritech Corporation, et al.
AT&T
A group of 39 former employees terminated during a reduction-in-force filed an ADEA and ERISA suit against Ameritech and related entities, including class action allegations for violations of ERISA Section 510.
Appellate Cases - Banking and Financial
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the banking and financial area.
Appellate Cases - Breach of Contract
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those involving breach of contract claims.
Appellate Cases - Class Actions
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the class action area.
Appellate Cases - Criminal Law and Procedure
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the area of criminal law and procedure.
Appellate Cases - Insurance
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those related to the insurance industry.
Appellate Cases - Product Liability and Personal Injury
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the product liability and personal injury areas.
Appellate Cases - Securities Fraud
Our attorneys have handled appeals involving a variety of legal issues, including those in the securities fraud area.
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.
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.
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.
Goggans v. Container Corporation of America
Container Corporation of America
We represented Container Corporation of America (CCA) in a class action filed by former employees of three plants that had been sold.
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.
Monroe-Higman v. United Air Lines, Inc.
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
The threshold issue in this case was whether United’s mandatory age-60 policy for all flight-deck crew members was legal under ADEA.
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.
UIFO v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al. - II
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
This unrelated suit filed by the same dissident group against United and ALPA alleged a multimillion-dollar breach of the duty of fair representation and breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA in connection with United’s pilot-defined contribution pension plan.
Addison v. United Air Lines, Inc.
United Airlines, Inc & UAL Cor
In this case, dissident pilots and others sued to prevent United from conducting a spinoff/termination of the pilots’ defined benefit pension plan to recover over $500 million in excess assets.
|
RSS | Blog | Advertising Opportunities | Site Map | Contact Us