A seasoned litigator and investigator, Matt represents clients in sophisticated, high-stakes commercial matters, in criminal cases against the federal government, and in multi-state investigations and regulatory enforcement actions brought by State Attorneys General.
Matt concentrates much of his practice on multimillion-dollar, bet-the-company commercial litigation, defending clients and their businesses in state and federal courts across the country. He has a successful track record at trial and is known as a talented writer who can win a case through dispositive motion practice.
As co-founder and leader of the firm’s State Attorneys General group, Matt has also built a national practice that has grown alongside client needs. He frequently interfaces with State Attorneys General across the country, advocating for clients on important policy positions and cases of national importance and supporting clients through sensitive litigation, antitrust matters, and multi-state investigations and regulatory enforcement matters brought by State Attorneys General.
In addition to his work leading the State Attorneys General group, Matt has represented clients in high-profile matters before the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and numerous other United States Attorney’s Offices. An experienced investigator, he routinely conducts thorough internal investigations in an effort to help corporate clients uncover and correct issues before government charges are filed.
Matt’s recent successes include:
- Representing a medical provider in a DOJ investigation alleging improper pricing; matter resolved with no press attention for a pittance of predicted penalties.
- Obtaining one of the first ever permanent injunctions under the Defend Trade Secret Acts (DTSA) in a high-profile corporate espionage and deceptive trade secrets case.
- Achieving a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California's Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds; case currently stands as the only time a federal court has enjoined a Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds.
- Prevailing on a motion to dismiss in the representation of a healthcare facility in a qui tam matter alleging damages of approximately $33 million; client instead received a judgment for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs against whistleblowers which was successfully defended on appeal.