Matt Brooker is an associate in the firm’s Richmond office. His practice focuses on complex trial and appellate litigation in federal and state courts across the country. Matt has represented clients in matters involving a broad array of subject matters, including class actions, contracts, commercial disputes, mergers and acquisitions, and securities fraud. Matt also maintains an active pro bono practice.

Before joining the firm, Matt served as a law clerk to the Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Relevant Experience

• Moore v. Macquarie (La. Dist. Ct.) – Counsel to defendants in class action seeking relief for alleged violations of fiduciary duty and conspiracy.
• Jackson v. Clarke (C.A.4) – Counsel to state inmate seeking federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
• Thalhimer v. Cherry Bekaert (Va. Cir. Ct.) – Successfully defended public accounting and consulting firm against breach of contract, negligence, and fraud claims.
• Anonymous v. Stoney (Va. Cir. Ct.) – Counsel to the City of Richmond in its efforts to remove City-owned Confederate monuments.
• Morrisey v. West Virginia AFL-CIO (W.Va. Sup. Ct.) - Counsel to Amicus Curiae in case presenting the question whether West Virginia’s right-to-work legislation is constitutional.
• Milliman, Inc. v. Donelon (SCOTUS) - Counsel to Amicus Curiae in case presenting the question whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state’s forum selection clause and requires a state insurance commissioner to arbitrate pre-insolvency damages claims against non-policyholders.
• Successfully defended several public companies in multi-agency investigations involving allegations of improper financial reporting and tax fraud.
• In re Caterpillar Inc. Sec. Litig. (N.D. Ill.) – Successfully defended public company sued in putative securities class action

• Penton LLC v. Informa PLC (Del. Ch.) – Represented private equity firm in lawsuit seeking relief for alleged breach of a $1.6 billion merger agreement
• Huntsman Int’l LLC v. Albemarle (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – Counsel to public company in lawsuit alleging fraud and breach of $1 billion stock purchase agreement
• Lex Claims LLC v. García-Padillia (D.P.R.) – Defended government entity against numerous creditor claims in Puerto Rico’s financial crisis litigation
• Force v. Facebook; Cohen v. Facebook (E.D.N.Y.; C.A.2) – Successfully defended public company against lawsuit challenging the alleged use of social networking platform by terrorist organizations
• Abante Rooter v. Alarm.com (N.D. Cal.) – Represented public company in class action seeking relief for alleged violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
• In re Phillips (C.A.4) – Counsel to state inmate seeking prefiling authorization to file a second application for federal habeas corpus relief
• Bauer v. Becerra (SCOTUS) – Counsel to petitioners in case presenting the question whether a constitutional right may be conditioned on the payment of a special fee
• Turner v. United States (SCOTUS) – Counsel to Amicus Curiae in case presenting the question whether state court misapplied Brady v. Maryland and its progeny
• ActiveLaf, LLC v. Duhon (SCOTUS) – Counsel to petitioner in case presenting the question whether a state-court decision refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act
• Knight Capital v. Henkel KGaA (E.D. Mich.; C.A.6) – Successfully defended public company against allegations of breach of contract and tortious interference stemming from a failed distribution and licensing agreement
• McClellan v. City of Alexandria (E.D.V.A.) – Successfully argued against dismissal in litigation arising under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments

Bar Admissions

Education
JD, University of Virginia School of Law, Order of the Coif; Articles Editor, Virginia Law Review; Dean’s Scholarship, 2015BA, Northern Michigan University, summa cum laude; Richard O’Dell Endowment Scholar; Men’s Ice Hockey, 2012

• Centralizing Congressional Oversight, 32 VA. J. SOC. PL’Y & L. 261
• Note, Taking the Path Less Traveled: FOIA’s Impact on the Tension between the D.C. Circuit and Vermont Yankee, 102 VA. L. REV. 1101