
Mitchell is an experienced litigator whose practice centers on high-stakes disputes and appeals across a broad spectrum of industries and subject matters, including post-closing M&A disputes, data-privacy class actions, complex insurance coverage litigation, and other business disputes. Mitchell is a trusted advisor to clients navigating complex and consequential litigation. He represents private equity firms and their portfolio companies, technology companies, multinational insurers, financial services providers, and healthcare organizations.
Mitchell has experience litigating post-closing M&A disputes, including indemnification claims and allegations of fraud. He also regularly represents clients in complex business disputes involving breach of contract and business torts. On the insurance side, he advises and represents insurers in high-value insurance coverage disputes involving general liability and representations and warranties policies.
In addition, he has defended companies in a variety of industries in data privacy and consumer class actions that risk reputational and significant financial exposure, often involving cutting-edge statutory and constitutional issues. He has litigated cases under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and other states’ privacy statutes.
Mitchell counsels clients through all phases of litigation, from pre-suit investigation and discovery to dispositive motions, trial, and appeal. He has authored dozens of briefs in federal and state courts around the country. As a member of the firm’s appellate practice, Mitchell draws on his experience clerking for two federal judges to navigate complex legal issues in critical motions at the trial court, establish a clean record for appeal, and defend success—or correct course—in appellate courts. Mitchell also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on appellate advocacy, including amicus briefs to courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Before joining Mintz, Mitchell served as a law clerk to the Honorable O. Rogeriee Thompson of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and to the Honorable Alvin W. Thompson of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. During law school, Mitchell served as managing editor of the Boston College Law Review and was a member of the National Moot Court Team. He and his teammate also won the Wendell F. Grimes Moot Court Competition.
Mitchell is an experienced litigator whose practice centers on high-stakes disputes and appeals across a broad spectrum of industries and subject matters, including post-closing M&A disputes, data-privacy class actions, complex insurance coverage litigation, and other business disputes. Mitchell is a trusted advisor to clients navigating complex and consequential litigation. He represents private equity firms and their portfolio companies, technology companies, multinational insurers, financial services providers, and healthcare organizations.
Experience
- Secured summary judgment in New York State Supreme Court Commercial Division on behalf of RxSense, a pharmaceutical benefits manager, in a complex contract and licensing dispute with a vendor.
- Secured a post-trial victory on behalf of private equity firm Brentwood Associates in a complex post-closing M&A dispute arising from Brentwood’s acquisition of software company Service Management Group (“SMG”).
viewpoints
PBMs Sue Arkansas over Restrictive PBM Ownership Law
June 9, 2025 | Blog | By Theresa Carnegie, Hassan Shaikh, Samantha Hawkins, Mitchell Clough
On April 16, 2025, Arkansas enacted Act 624 (the Act), an unprecedented law prohibiting pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning or operating pharmacies in the state. As we discussed in our May 2025 blog post, the law’s passage has already resulted in market disruptions, and PBMs with vertically integrated business models have cautioned that the law will limit patients’ access to drugs and cost many local jobs.
Now, two of the nation’s largest PBMs, CVS Health and Cigna’s Express Scripts (ESI), have filed federal lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the Act on the grounds that the Act is unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, and harmful to Arkansans.
Appeals Court Rejects AstraZeneca’s Challenge to Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program
May 12, 2025 | Blog | By Mitchell Clough, Xavier Hardy
A federal appellate court has handed down the first appellate-level decision addressing the merits of drug manufacturers’ challenges to the IRA’s Drug Negotiation Program.
Mintz IRA Update — A Circuit Win and the End of Chevron Deference Could Shift Tides in Drug Price Negotiation Program Challenges
February 13, 2025 | Article | By Xavier Hardy, Mitchell Clough
Read about how a win in the Fifth Circuit and the end of Chevron deference could breathe new life into the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program challenges despite continued losses in federal court.
Mintz IRA Update — Fourth Edition: Q1 2025
February 13, 2025 | Article | By Rachel A. Alexander, Theresa Carnegie, Tara E. Dwyer, Lauren Moldawer, Hassan Shaikh, Stephnie John, Madison Castle, Mitchell Clough, Xavier Hardy, Samantha Hawkins, Alexander Hecht, Abdie Santiago
Mintz’s Pharmacy Benefits and PBM Contracting Practice is pleased to present the ‘Fourth Edition: Q1 2025’ of our Mintz IRA Update, a regular publication that delves into developments of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) and their impact on pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders.
Mintz IRA Update — Third Edition: Q2 2024
July 15, 2024 | Blog | By Rachel A. Alexander, Theresa Carnegie, Madison Castle, Mitchell Clough, Tara E. Dwyer, David Gilboa, Xavier Hardy, Samantha Hawkins, Stephnie John, Bridgette Keller, Lauren Moldawer, Abdie Santiago, Hassan Shaikh
In ‘Third Edition: Q2 2024’ of the Mintz IRA Update, we cover updates to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program being considered by CMS, developments in litigation challenging the program, the consequences and costs of redesigning the Part D program, opposition to the use of march-in rights to lower drug prices, and the growing use of state prescription drug affordability boards.
Mintz IRA Update — IRA Litigation Update: Courts Begin to Address Legal Challenges to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program
July 15, 2024 | Blog | By Xavier Hardy, Mitchell Clough
Mintz IRA Update — Second Edition: Q1 2024
February 21, 2024 | Blog | By Rachel A. Alexander, Theresa Carnegie, Tara E. Dwyer, Madison Castle, Mitchell Clough, Xavier Hardy, Stephnie John, Bridgette Keller, Abdie Santiago, Hassan Shaikh
In this edition of the Mintz IRA Update, we cover the status of the negotiations underway between CMS and manufacturers pursuant to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and current legal challenges to the program, other drug pricing–related IRA initiatives, the IRA’s small biotech exemption, implications associated with removing the average manufacturer price cap on Medicaid rebates, and the Biden administration’s proposed draft guidance on patent “march-in” rights.
Mintz IRA Update — Inaugural Edition
September 20, 2023 | Blog | By Theresa Carnegie, Tara E. Dwyer, Mitchell Clough, Xavier Hardy, Stephnie John, Bridgette Keller, Lauren Moldawer, Pat Ouellette, Hassan Shaikh
Mintz’s PBM & Pharmacy practice is proud to present the Mintz IRA Update, a regular publication that delves into the spectrum of developments under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) impacting the health care industry.
Losing Your International Shoe: Corporations May Waive Contacts-Based Personal Jurisdiction in Consent-by-Registration States
July 13, 2023 | Blog | By John Dougherty, Mitchell Clough
Late last month the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to a potential sea change in personal jurisdiction over corporate entities. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Court held that any corporation registered to do business in a state which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to general personal jurisdiction waives its right to assert a Due Process challenge to jurisdiction in that state. Thus, businesses registered to do business in such states can be sued there, even if none of the events underlying the lawsuit took place in that state.
News & Press
Mintz secured a judgment of more than $13 million on behalf of the private equity buyer of a software company in an acquisition dispute involving breach of contract and fraud claims. The judgment marks a comprehensive victory for our client, which prevailed on all claims.
Mintz is pleased to announce that 31 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers and 35 attorneys have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars for 2024.
Mintz recently filed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to protect access to emergency care for pregnant women under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in the consolidated cases Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States that the Court will hear on April 24th.
Mitchell is an experienced litigator whose practice centers on high-stakes disputes and appeals across a broad spectrum of industries and subject matters, including post-closing M&A disputes, data-privacy class actions, complex insurance coverage litigation, and other business disputes. Mitchell is a trusted advisor to clients navigating complex and consequential litigation. He represents private equity firms and their portfolio companies, technology companies, multinational insurers, financial services providers, and healthcare organizations.
Recognition & Awards
Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star - Business Litigation (2024)