Alain P. Mathieu

Associate

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1895

Share:

Alain practices in many areas of complex litigation, including contract disputes, commercial and business litigation, and government investigations. He is also an active member of the firm’s interdisciplinary working group focused on the legal and policy implications of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics technologies, as well as the firm’s Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery, and Sports & Entertainment practices. In addition, Alain maintains an active pro bono practice, in which he counsels and represents clients in matters related to civil appeals, immigration, and domestic and sexual violence.

During law school, Alain served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Gregory C. Flynn of the Waltham District Court and the District Court Appellate Division. He was also a criminal law teaching assistant and a summer law clerk at Free Speech For People, a legal advocacy organization dedicated to campaign finance reform. During his final year of law school, he became certified as a mediator in accordance with Massachusetts state law and Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts requirements.

Before he attended law school, Alain held several positions at Bowdoin College, his alma mater, including alumni fund associate in the school’s annual giving office. He also served as an intern for US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Education

  • Boston College (JD, cum laude)
  • Bowdoin College (BA, cum laude)

Involvement

  • Friends Committee Member, Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) (2017 – present)
  • Bowdoin Regional Admissions Volunteer Organization Member, Bowdoin College Admissions Office (2014 – present)
  • Alumni Fund Class Agent, Bowdoin College Office of Annual Giving (2012 – present)

Languages

- Creole (Haitian)

- French

Offices

Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Related Practices

Related Industries

Recent Insights

Viewpoint

Judge Rakoff Highlights the Financial Risk to Objectors of Class Settlements

October 23, 2018

Viewpoint

U.S. District Court Holds that Certain Claims by Opt-Out Plaintiffs Are Barred by the Statute of Repose

October 10, 2018|Blog

Viewpoint

Court Allows Volkswagen Bondholder Action to Proceed, But Expresses Doubts about the Plaintiff’s Ability to Certify a Class

October 1, 2018|Blog

View All Insights

Viewpoints

Viewpoint

Judge Rakoff Highlights the Financial Risk to Objectors of Class Settlements

October 23, 2018|

On August 15, 2018, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York awarded an objector to the Petrobras class settlement nearly $12,000 in attorneys’ fees (click here for the Order).  The objector had asked the Court for almost $200,000 to cover 231.7 hours of legal work. Approximately one month later, Judge Rakoff sanctioned another objector to the Petrobas class settlement (click here for the Order). In the September Order, Judge Rakoff issued a grave warning to future objectors and reminded counsel that it is the Court’s duty to “safeguard the ability of objectors to protect class members from abusive settlements while in turn protect[] class members from being abused by the objectors themselves.
Viewpoint

U.S. District Court Holds that Certain Claims by Opt-Out Plaintiffs Are Barred by the Statute of Repose

October 10, 2018| Blog

In a recent ruling in In re: BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims asserted by opt-out plaintiffs as time barred by the Exchange Act’s statute of repose pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in ANZ Securities. This decision underscores that institutional investors should closely monitor the statutes of limitation and repose applicable to securities fraud claims to ensure they are not later barred from recovery.
Viewpoint

Court Allows Volkswagen Bondholder Action to Proceed, But Expresses Doubts about the Plaintiff’s Ability to Certify a Class

October 1, 2018| Blog

As we previously noted in this post, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the Volkswagen Bondholder Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to amend, holding that it could not rely on the Affiliated Ute or Basic presumptions to plead reliance, and that it had not sufficiently pleaded direct reliance. On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Bondholder’s Class Action complaint (SAC), which added allegations: (1) of direct reliance, (2) that the bonds at issue were priced and traded on an efficient market, (3) that the defendants’ alleged fraud created the market, and (4) that Volkswagen committed fraud on the regulatory process. On September 7, 2018, the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss, and ruled that that the case may proceed to discovery, but also expressed concerns about the Plaintiffs’ ability to certify a class.

Ninth Circuit Holds Transactions in Unsponsored ADRs Can Be “Domestic” Under Morrison

August 14, 2018| Blog

The Toshiba Securities Litigation stems from alleged violations of the Exchange Act, as well as the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan, against Toshiba Corp., in connection with its alleged accounting fraud and accompanying restatements of its financial reports.

Volkswagen Bondholders Reliance Allegations Come Under Scrutiny

May 25, 2018| Blog

This case stems from alleged misstatement made by Volkswagen Group of America Finance (“VWGoAF”) in an Offering Memorandum governing the issuance of three sets of bonds.