Matthew Insley-Pruitt
Partner
- University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D., 2005)
- University of Chicago (B.A., 2000)
- New York
- U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
- U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits
Matthew recently co-authored an article published by the New York Law Journal on July 5, 2016, titled "Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts and CFPB's Proposed Rules."
Matthew is admitted to the bar of the State of New York.
Experience
Matthew was part of the team that recovered $280 million on behalf of investors in JPMorgan Acceptance Corp. Matthew also represented the minority shareholders in In re Venoco, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, which settled days before the company declared bankruptcy and established a $19 million fund for class members. These were just some of the several substantial recoveries for investors Matthew was involved in, including In re Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (establishing a common fund of $6.25 million for public shareholders) and In re Playboy Enterprises, Inc. Shareholders Litig. (establishing a common fund of $5.25 million for public shareholders). Matthew is currently representing the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-10632 (N.D. Ill.), in which the court granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement in the amount of $27 million, after having denied defendants’ motion to dismiss; and Edwards v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., Case No.: 4:18-cv-04330 (S.D. Tex.), which is currently in discovery after the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.Matthew’s cases have also accomplished real benefits for consumers across the country. Matthew was one of plaintiff's counsel in McLaughlin v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., in which the Court in the Northern District of California issued a precedent setting Order under the Truth in Lending Act’s (“TILA”) Regulation Z, finding that the bank is required under TILA to indicate the amount of property insurance proceeds held by the bank on the plaintiff customer’s payoff statement. The Court recently approved a settlement where eligible homeowners will receive approximately $2,500 each and Wells Fargo will change its practices going forward. A settlement in an action in Oklahoma against Bank of America established a common fund that provided eligible home owners in the class with payments of approximately $1,300 each and also required Bank of America to change its practices. In Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble, Matthew represents consumers of Charmin Freshmates flushable wipes, who allege that they paid too much for wet bathroom tissue that was not actually flushable. After defeating the motion to dismiss and repeatedly defeating defendant’s attacks on class certification, Wolf Popper negotiated a settlement with P&G where class members are eligible to receive up to $50.20 per household and P&G agreed to remove the representation that Freshmates are “safe for sewer and septic systems.” The court approved the settlement on July 23, 2020.
Recognition
- Super Lawyers (New York – Metro Edition) Rising Star, 2013-2018
- Super Lawyers (New York – Metro Edition) 2020-2024
Lead Plaintiff
Deadline: 01/06/2025
Case Updates | 11/07/2024
D.C. suit on behalf of U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund seeks warning labels on stoves
Case Updates | 09/16/2024
Reports that suit under D.C. consumer law is first to ask for warning labels on gas stoves
Case Updates | 06/11/2024
Firm is representing consumer group U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund in case to enforce the District of Columbia consumer protection law
Case Updates | 05/29/2024
Case Updates | 04/12/2024
Case Updates | 04/10/2024
Case Updates | 07/11/2022
Publications | 01/24/2020
Case Updates | 01/15/2019
Case Updates | 08/07/2018