Commercial & Syndicated Lending
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS)
Community Banking & Financial Institutions
Electronic Payments & FinTech
Franchise & Hospitality
Health Care Innovation
Agriculture & Heavy Machinery
Consumable Goods
Retail & Household Goods
Fabricated & Component Goods
Mobility & Transportation
Computer Systems & Software Development
Banking & Financial Disputes
Securities & Corporate Disputes
Unfair Competition Litigation
CMBS Lending & Servicing Transactions
Construction Claims & Claim Defense
Public-Private Partnerships (P3)
Risk Management & Project Counseling
Schedule & Sequence Impact Analyses
Closely Held Business Transactions
Private Funds & Investment Partnerships
Securities & Corporate Governance
Startups & Emerging Businesses
Trade & Foreign Law
Employee Benefits & ERISA
Municipal, Townships & Counties
Schools, School Districts & Universities
Regulatory & Administrative Law
Insurance Regulation & Risk Management
IP Licensing & Other Transactions
Media & First Amendment
India Desk
Latin America Desk
Middle East & North Africa Desk
Affirmative Action & OFCCP
Collective Bargaining & Arbitrations
Employee Safety & OSHA
Employment Discrimination & Wrongful Termination
Trade Secrets & Covenants Not to Compete
Union Avoidance / Campaigns
Electronic Data Discovery
Product Liability & Tort Litigation
Tort Defense
Shopping Center & Retail Development
Frost Brown Todd
Matthew C. Blickensderfer
513.651.6162 Email Assistant Info
Hi-Res Photo
Matt helps clients solve their challenges in two principal areas: (1) commercial litigation, with a focus on antitrust litigation and counseling, and (2) appellate litigation.
Matt has handled a wide variety of antitrust litigation, including cases alleging price-fixing and other conspiracies, monopolization, tying, and exclusive dealing. His antitrust work includes cases brought by government enforcers and private plaintiffs, including class actions. He frequently consults with clients outside the litigation context on all aspects of state and federal antitrust law including price discrimination. He frequently advises clients on their relationships with competitors, their relationships with suppliers and customers, and pricing issues. His antitrust work spans many industries, including sports, manufacturing, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, automobile-related businesses, and payment services.
Matt's commercial litigation practice involves the prosecution and defense of claims for breach of contract (including UCC Article 2 litigation), tortious interference, fraud, and disparagement. Much of his work in these areas has involved Article 2 litigation for manufacturers, especially those in the automotive sector.
Matt also represents clients in federal and state appellate courts. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable David A. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was the editor-in-chief of the third edition of the Sixth Circuit Practice Manual (LexisNexis 2006) and the author of its chapters on appellate jurisdiction, stays pending appeal, and briefing requirements. He was also a co-author of Kentucky Appellate Practice (Thompson/West 2006) with his colleagues Sheryl Snyder and Griffin Terry Sumner.
Matt's Relevant Experience
Antitrust Litigation & Counseling
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP (W.D. Ky.) – Matt represents a petroleum refiner in the defense of a parens patriae action brought by the Attorney General of Kentucky. The lawsuit alleges that Marathon restrained trade in and monopolized the market for reformulated gasoline in the Louisville and Northern Kentucky metropolitan areas.
Hyland v. Homeservices of America, et al. (E.D. Ky.) – Matt currently represents a real estate brokerage firm accused of conspiring with other real estate brokers to fix the commissions on residential real estate in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The district court certified a class of more than 70,000 sellers of residential real estate for the period 2001-2005. In July of 2012, less than two weeks before trial was set to begin, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Midwest Agency Services et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al. (E.D. Ky.) – Matt represented the defendants in the successful defense of tying and state law claims. The plaintiffs alleged that Chase Bank refused to purchase automobile loans made by dealers unless the loans included a gap product issued by a Chase affiliate, and that this amounted to illegal tying under the federal antitrust laws and violations of Kentucky insurance statutes. The district court dismissed all claims, accepting all of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants: (1) the plaintiffs failed to plead injury to overall competition and thus had not established antitrust injury, (2) the conduct alleged was not a tying arrangement at all, but rather the defendants' legitimate choice as to what risks to accept, and (3) the conduct alleged did not violate the Kentucky insurance statutes.
Kentucky Speedway LLC v. NASCAR (E.D. Ky.) – Matt represented NASCAR in the successful defense of a conspiracy and monopolization case brought by Kentucky Speedway in federal district court. The lawsuit alleged that NASCAR and various racetrack operators, including NASCAR's sister company, had conspired to exclude Kentucky Speedway and that NASCAR had illegally monopolized stock car racing. The district judge granted summary judgment for the defense. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
ClarkWestern Dietrich Building Systems, LLC v. Certified Steel Stud Association et alia (Butler County Ohio) – Matt was part of the trial team that secured the largest verdict (in the longest jury trial) in the history of Butler County, Ohio. ClarkDietrich sued several competitors and their trade association for disparagement, defamation, violations of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and civil conspiracy. Matt led the damages aspects of the trial, including examination of both sides' experts and relevant fact witnesses. He also handled settlement discussions. During the two-and-one-half month trial, three of the four defendants settled. The jury awarded $49.5 million in damages against the remaining defendant. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer, 139 Ohio St.3d 314, 2014-Ohio-2102, 11 N.E.3d 1152 (Ohio 2014) – Matt represented the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and its Director in this contempt proceeding involving underlying eminent domain actions that the Supreme Court of Ohio had previously ordered the Department to file. Before Frost Brown Todd's representation began, the Supreme Court of Ohio had held the Department and its Director in contempt for delays in initiating the eminent domain actions. Subsequently, after Frost Brown Todd began representing the Department and its Director, the property owners filed a second contempt motion based on events in the underlying actions. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the property owners' second contempt motion.
Huffman v. Hilltop Companies, LLC, 747 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2014) – Matt represented Hilltop Companies in the successful appeal of a federal district court's refusal to compel arbitration of cases brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The district court had denied a motion to compel arbitration despite the existence of arbitration clauses in the plaintiffs' independent contractor agreements with Hilltop, because those agreements contained survival clauses that did not include the arbitration provision as a term that survived the expiration of the agreements. In a case of first impression at the federal appellate level, the Sixth Circuit reversed and compelled arbitration. The court of appeals held that the absence of the arbitration clause from the list of surviving provisions was insufficient to overcome the presumption that an agreement to arbitrate disputes survives the expiration of a contract.
Lipker v. AK Steel Corporation, 698 F.3d 923 (6th Cir. 2012) – The plaintiff filed this ERISA benefits action against against AK Steel for alleged miscalculation of surviving spouse benefits under the company's pension plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. We secured a reversal in the Court of Appeals, which held that the company had correctly interpreted its plan and correctly calculated benefits. The decision effectively cut off a potential flood of other lawsuits and liabilities, including a simultaneously pending class action.
Welsh Development Company v. Warren County Regional Planning Commission, 128 Ohio St.3d 471, 2011-Ohio-1604, 946 N.E.2d 215 (Ohio 2011) – The court of appeals had held that Welsh Development failed to perfect its administrative appeal based on its interpretation of the statutes governing appeals in Ohio state courts. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted our discretionary appeal to establish clear standards for Ohio administrative appeals. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Welsh Development's appeal had been properly filed, and it articulated clear standards for filing such appeals.
Alliance Health Group LLC v. Bridging Health Options, LLC, 553 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2008) – This case of first impression in the Fifth Circuit involved an issue of interpretation of forum selection clauses on which three other circuits had split. The Fifth Circuit accepted our client's position that a clause requiring litigation "in" a particular county permitted litigation in federal court, and not just the state court for that county, so long as the federal courthouse was physically located in the county in question.
Ignazio v. Clear Channel Communications, 113 Ohio St.3d 276, 865 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 2007) – The court of appeals had held that Clear Channel's employment arbitration agreement was unenforceable because of an objectionable provision. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted our discretionary appeal in order to set standards for severability of contract provisions. The Supreme Court held 6-1 in our client's favor that the unlawful provision of the arbitration agreement was severable and the remainder of the agreement enforceable.
Scovill v. WSYX/ABC, 425 F.3d 1012 (6th Cir. 2005) – In this employment discrimination lawsuit, the Sixth Circuit accepted our client's arguments and reversed the district court's severance of certain aspects of an arbitration agreement while affirming the district court's findings that the dispute was arbitrable and the arbitration clause lawful.
45 Frost Brown Todd Attorneys named to 2020 Ohio Super Lawyers® and Ohio Rising Stars® Lists
The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 includes 169 Frost Brown Attorneys
iPhone Users have Standing to Sue Apple for Alleged Monopolization
Other Info About Matt
Bar Membership
Civic Activities
Firm Committees
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1995, cum laude
Northwestern University, B.A., 1992, with highest distinction
Matt is licensed to practice in the following states:
Ohio, 2000
Local & National Recognition
The Best Lawyers in America® Cincinnati"Lawyer of the Year," Litigation – Antitrust, 2013 and 2018
The Best Lawyers in America®, 2013 – 2019 (Litigation-Antitrust; Commercial Litigation)
Super Lawyers®, 2019 (Appellate Litigation)
Cincy Leading Lawyers, Antitrust and Appellate Litigation, 2006-2018
AV® Pre-Eminent Rated, Martindale-Hubbell®
Acritas Stars®
Civic & Charitable Organizations
Springer School and Center (primary school for children with learning disabilities), Trustee, 2009-2017; President, 2014-2017
Matt is an author of the following publications:
Editor-in-chief and contributing author: "Sixth Circuit Practice Manual" (LexisNexis 3d ed. 2006)
"Kentucky Appellate Practice" (Thompson/West 2006) Snyder, Sumner and Blickensderfer
Matt serves on the following committees at Frost Brown Todd:
Ethics Committee, Member
Information Security Steering Committee, Member
Client Extranet System
© 2020 Frost Brown Todd LLC
Begin your search.
Before you send us any information, know that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. We cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest with any existing clients. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any legal matter that involves you unless and until you receive a letter from us in which we agree to represent you (an "engagement letter"). Only after you receive an engagement letter will you be our client and be properly able to exchange information with us. If you understand and agree with the foregoing and you are not our client and will not divulge confidential information to us, you may contact us for general information.
Accept Terms and email mblickensderfer@fbtlaw.com Cancel
Melissa Zahn
Email 513.651.6770
Accept Terms and email mzahn@fbtlaw.com Cancel