Berman Tabacco

Securities, Antitrust

Partner

Matthew D. Pearson, a partner in the San Francisco office, works tirelessly on behalf of consumers and investors who have been victims of fraud, anticompetitive conduct or other unfair or fraudulent business practices.

Since joining Berman Tabacco in 2005, Matthew has delivered financial justice by litigating a number of complex cases, primarily involving antitrust violations and securities fraud. He is also a member of the firm’s New Case Investigations team where he analyzes and advises clients on potential matters.

Matthew also has taken a particular interest in international litigation. He regularly monitors foreign securities fraud and antitrust litigation, tracks developments in foreign class action law and assists clients interested in litigating abroad.

Matthew was ranked by Benchmark Litigation as a California Future Star (2024) and recognized as a Recommended Attorney in Antitrust by The Legal 500 (U.S. edition 2023).  He was also selected as a Super Lawyer by Northern California Super Lawyers (2021-2023).

EXPERIENCE

Integral member of the team that represented car purchasers in In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-md-1532 (D. Me.), which alleged that major auto manufacturers conspired to stop less expensive Canadian new vehicles from being exported to the United States. Mr. Pearson was involved in the day-to-day prosecution of nearly all stages of that litigation. He further represented car buyers in the related litigation in California state court, In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 4298 and 4303 (San Francisco Superior Court), which settled with the last remaining defendant, Ford Canada, for $82 million, bringing the total settlement in this action to $137.85 (including three prior settlements of $55.85 million for class members in the federal and California actions, which have been approved). The Court approved the $82 million settlement on October 31, 2022. Represents a multiemployer health care plan in In re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:20-cv-05735-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), which alleges that AbbVie, Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers entered unlawful “pay-for-delay” agreements regarding the brand name drug Bystolic, a medication used to treat high blood pressure. The action alleges that these pay-for-delay agreements unlawfully prevented the introduction of less expensive generic versions of Bystolic from entering the market, giving patients no choice but to pay higher prices for the brand name Bystolic. Represents purchases of Apple devices, such as iPhones and iPads, in In re Apple Processor Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00147-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The case alleges that Apple violated certain consumer protection laws by selling devices to consumers when Apple knew, yet failed to disclose, that the devices were defective because their central processing units are subject to two vulnerabilities—called Spectre and Meltdown—that permit hackers to extract personal information from the devices. The case further alleges that Apple’s efforts to fix the defects have caused significant slowdowns in the performance of the devices. Member of the litigation team in In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Securities, Derivative, and “ERISA” Litigation, Master File No. 08-MDL No. 1963 (S.D.N.Y.), arising out of the company's 2008 collapse. The firm’s efforts as co-lead counsel secured settlements with defendants totaling $294.9 million. Represented diamond purchasers in Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., No. 04-02819 (D.N.J.). The firm's efforts resulted in a $295 million settlement with diamond supplier De Beers in the class action, which alleged De Beers violated various federal and state antitrust laws. On behalf of three union clients, co-authored an amicus brief submitted to the California Supreme Court in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange County; James Benson, Real Parties in Interest, No. S171845 (Cal. Supreme Ct.), involving products falsely labeled as "Made in the USA." The California Supreme Court's ultimate opinion (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011)) was highly favorable to the interests of the firm’s clients and became one of the leading opinions regarding standing under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the California Bar, Member National Association of Public Pension Attorneys, Member Bar Association of San Francisco, Member

University of California, Davis, School of Law (J.D., 2004) University of California, Los Angeles (B.A., Political Science, with an International Relations Concentration, 1999)