Over the course of nine decades, Whiteford has earned a reputation as one of the leading trial law firms in the Mid-Atlantic, with a distinguished record of success pursuing and defending high stakes litigation. Named the 2019 "Maryland Law Firm of the Year" by Benchmark Litigation and recognized by Chambers USA, U.S. News and World Report, Law360, SuperLawyers, Best Lawyers in America, Legal 500 and Martindale-Hubbell, among others, we provide sophisticated, cost-effective dispute resolution services to clients of every description, from Fortune 100 enterprises to middle market companies to government entities to nonprofit organizations and associations.
Our attorneys are experienced practitioners, many with financial, accounting and business backgrounds. We practice before a wide range of tribunals, including all state and federal trial and appellate courts in the region, a wide variety of courts across the nation, administrative agencies and alternative dispute resolution forums.
We treat every case as one that will go to trial, while developing creative ways to get difficult cases resolved without trial. Our substantial “in-court” trial experience greatly enhances our ability to identify the legal, factual and commercial issues in a case, and to create a litigation strategy that is at once comprehensive – addressing issues from discovery through trial or settlement – and dynamic enough to adapt as necessary throughout the litigation. And, we are expert at utilizing efficient state-of-the-art technology, whether for managing and streamlining discovery or for organizing and developing evidence and courtroom presentations.
With more than 90 litigators, we serve clients locally, regionally and nationally.
U.S. courts are among the most reliable venues in the world for enforcing investment treaty awards against foreign governments. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions—NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (D.C. Cir. August 2024)[1] and Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. February 2026) and Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC/JSC DTEK Krymenergo (February 2026) [2] —make clear that foreign sovereigns cannot easily use complex treaty or jurisdictional arguments to avoid U.S. court proceedings before investors receive a hearing on the merits. For EU investors holding ECT awards that cannot be enforced within the EU, the message is simple: what blocks enforcement in Europe does not necessarily block enforcement in the United States.
This alert outlines a practical protocol the D.C. Circuit's rulings suggest for investors pursuing post-judgment discovery against sovereign assets, and identifies the investors, developers and companies most likely to be affected by these decisions.
[1] This involved three cases against the Kingdom of Spain before the D.C. Circuit: NextEra v. Kingdom of Spain; No. 23-7031, 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7032, and Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7038 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024). The three cases were decided separately before the district courts with variant rulings. While the NextEra and 9REN decisions held that the U.S. district court had jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and granted the investors’ requested injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts, the Blasket decision found that Spain was immune under the FSIA. Spain appealed the NextEra and 9REN decisions and Blasket, a successor of the investors, appealed the Blasket decision. The D.C. Circuit resolved the three appeals in a single opinion. On May 5, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 29, 2026, the petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
U.S. courts are among the most reliable venues in the world for enforcing investment treaty awards against foreign governments. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions—NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (D.C. Cir. August 2024)[1] and Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. February 2026) and Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC/JSC DTEK Krymenergo (February 2026) [2] —make clear that foreign sovereigns cannot easily use complex treaty or jurisdictional arguments to avoid U.S. court proceedings before investors receive a hearing on the merits. For EU investors holding ECT awards that cannot be enforced within the EU, the message is simple: what blocks enforcement in Europe does not necessarily block enforcement in the United States.
This alert outlines a practical protocol the D.C. Circuit's rulings suggest for investors pursuing post-judgment discovery against sovereign assets, and identifies the investors, developers and companies most likely to be affected by these decisions.
[1] This involved three cases against the Kingdom of Spain before the D.C. Circuit: NextEra v. Kingdom of Spain; No. 23-7031, 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7032, and Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7038 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024). The three cases were decided separately before the district courts with variant rulings. While the NextEra and 9REN decisions held that the U.S. district court had jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and granted the investors’ requested injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts, the Blasket decision found that Spain was immune under the FSIA. Spain appealed the NextEra and 9REN decisions and Blasket, a successor of the investors, appealed the Blasket decision. The D.C. Circuit resolved the three appeals in a single opinion. On May 5, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 29, 2026, the petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Why the Supreme Court and a Missouri Class Action Decide Roundup’s Price Together
Bayer is defending Roundup on two tracks at once, and the market should read them together. On one track, the Supreme Court will decide in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell whether federal pesticide law bars a state failure-to-warn verdict the EPA never required. On the other, a Missouri state court is weighing a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement that would resolve most of the remaining cases by contract. The ruling sets the rule. The settlement sets the number. Neither is independent of the other.
Why the Supreme Court and a Missouri Class Action Decide Roundup’s Price Together
Bayer is defending Roundup on two tracks at once, and the market should read them together. On one track, the Supreme Court will decide in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell whether federal pesticide law bars a state failure-to-warn verdict the EPA never required. On the other, a Missouri state court is weighing a proposed $7.25 billion class settlement that would resolve most of the remaining cases by contract. The ruling sets the rule. The settlement sets the number. Neither is independent of the other.
Since January, multiple fundamental developments have dramatically altered the Title IX landscape, signaling a seismic shift in its interpretation and enforcement. These developments include a rapidly escalating and public feud between the Trump administration and the Maine Department of Education over Maine’s refusal to ban transgender girls from participating in school athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls. These interpretation and enforcement developments implicate issues of constitutional law, states’ rights and practical politics, and it is critical for those working in education and receiving federal funding to understand and navigate the changes.
Since January, multiple fundamental developments have dramatically altered the Title IX landscape, signaling a seismic shift in its interpretation and enforcement. These developments include a rapidly escalating and public feud between the Trump administration and the Maine Department of Education over Maine’s refusal to ban transgender girls from participating in school athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls. These interpretation and enforcement developments implicate issues of constitutional law, states’ rights and practical politics, and it is critical for those working in education and receiving federal funding to understand and navigate the changes.
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced several amendments to its Rules, which govern proceedings in Virginia court. Parties to civil cases should pay careful attention to two of those revisions, which will become effective on March 17, 2025.
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of Virginia announced several amendments to its Rules, which govern proceedings in Virginia court. Parties to civil cases should pay careful attention to two of those revisions, which will become effective on March 17, 2025.
On December 23, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of a district court’s order and nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its corresponding Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Rule.
On December 23, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion for a temporary stay of a district court’s order and nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its corresponding Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Reporting Rule.
Following a Texas federal district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction temporarily halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), the U.S. government has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court’s findings (found here). In response to both the national injunction and the appeal, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), the agency responsible for enforcing the CTA, issued guidance (found here) clarifying that reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports and will not face liability for noncompliance “while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.”
Following a Texas federal district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction temporarily halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), the U.S. government has filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court’s findings (found here). In response to both the national injunction and the appeal, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), the agency responsible for enforcing the CTA, issued guidance (found here) clarifying that reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reports and will not face liability for noncompliance “while the preliminary injunction remains in effect.”
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Merrick Garland (Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-478), issued a memorandum opinion and order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its implementing regulations and staying the compliance deadline for reporting companies pending further order of the court.
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Merrick Garland (Civil Action No. 4:24-CV-478), issued a memorandum opinion and order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its implementing regulations and staying the compliance deadline for reporting companies pending further order of the court.
On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in National Small Business United et al. v. Janet Yellen et. al., Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB, held the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) to be unconstitutional. In this surprising decision, U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke ruled “The CTA is unconstitutional because it cannot be justified as exercise of Congress’ enumerated powers.”
On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in National Small Business United et al. v. Janet Yellen et. al., Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB, held the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) to be unconstitutional. In this surprising decision, U.S. District Court Judge Liles C. Burke ruled “The CTA is unconstitutional because it cannot be justified as exercise of Congress’ enumerated powers.”
87 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027. The attorneys selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
We are pleased to announce that Daniel A. Griffith has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department and Dorothy Deng has been appointed Co-Chair of the Associations, Nonprofits, and Political Organizations Section.
We are pleased to announce that Daniel A. Griffith has been appointed Co-Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department and Dorothy Deng has been appointed Co-Chair of the Associations, Nonprofits, and Political Organizations Section.
Whiteford client VACAYA, LLC, a leading international LGBTQ+ travel company, was sued in Federal Court in Sacramento, California, for allegations of fraud and racketeering activity (RICO).
Whiteford client VACAYA, LLC, a leading international LGBTQ+ travel company, was sued in Federal Court in Sacramento, California, for allegations of fraud and racketeering activity (RICO).
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2021. Twenty-two of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s Bankruptcy and Environmental Law practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings.
Whiteford, Taylor and Preston is pleased to announce that U.S. News and World Report - Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” has awarded the firm exemplary rankings for 2021. Twenty-two of the firm’s practices are ranked at the national level, and the firm’s Bankruptcy and Environmental Law practices have been recognized with national Tier 1 rankings.
