Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
Partner
Commercial & Business Litigation
Matt is a trial lawyer who has represented and advised clients in numerous high-stakes disputes in federal and state courts and in private arbitrations across the United States. He has taken a leading role in litigating and trying a diverse range of his clients’ most significant commercial cases, including construction, business, energy, environmental, mass tort, and real estate disputes. In recent years, Matt’s results include obtaining a $280 million judgment following a three-week trial over the construction of a water treatment facility, securing the dismissal of more than 125 lawsuits in a mass-tort MDL arising from the construction of several oil pipelines, winning summary judgment against a bet-the-company veil piercing claim in a nine-figure breach of contract dispute, and defending a real estate partnership in a multi-week trial of a $740 million novel tax dispute. Matt has broad experience representing clients at all stages of the litigation process, from crafting pre-suit resolutions of complex matters and securing dismissals at the pleading stage and on summary judgment, to leading trials and presenting oral arguments on appeal.
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) After a three-week trial to the court, secured a $280 million judgment in favor of Antero Treatment while defeating a $118 million counterclaim; the Court found that the defendant fraudulently induced Antero into signing an agreement for the design, construction and operation of a facility for the treatment of produced and flowback water; the Court also found that Antero properly terminated the agreement after the defendant defaulted by failing to construct the facility according to the requirements of the contract
(AAA Arbitration) – Won a complete defense award for the owner of a midstream bulk liquids terminal after a multi-week arbitration against the terminal’s former operator; the operator sought $27 million in lost profits damages, plus attorneys’ fees, after our client terminated its contract for cause; the operator recovered nothing on its claims and was ordered to pay damages on our client’s counterclaims; at trial, cross examined Claimant’s liability expert witness and key fact witnesses and direct examined multiple fact witnesses, including our client’s corporate representative
(AAA Arbitration) – Obtained a favorable result for a major energy company following an arbitration hearing against a contractor concerning the construction of a micro-fuel handling facility as part of a US $1.5 billion energy infrastructure project in the Caribbean
(U.S. Tax Court) – Defended a real estate partnership in a multi-week trial of a $740 million novel tax dispute involving a facial challenge to the validity of the IRS’s Partnership Anti-Abuse Regulation
(AAA Arbitration) – Obtained a seven-figure arbitration award for the developer of an underground natural gas storage facility in Brazil against the project’s reservoir engineering contractor in connection with the engineering contractor’s performance of front end engineering and design services
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Defended a Fortune 500 energy company in a jury trial against claims arising from an alleged catastrophic injury sustained by a contractor at our client’s chemical plant; following the presentation of Plaintiff’s case and our cross examination of Plaintiff’s witnesses, the case ended in a favorable settlement for our client
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County / 14th Court of Appeals) – Argued and prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a commercial real estate company, obtaining the complete dismissal of a breach of contract and nuisance lawsuit asserted by a neighboring property owner in connection with our client’s expansion of a regional distribution center; presented oral arguments on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County / 1st Court of Appeals) – After obtaining Plaintiffs’ dismissal of $1 billion+ putative class action in a case alleging widespread flooding caused by the construction of our client’s pipelines, successfully obtained dismissal pursuant to Chapter 150 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code from the First Court of Appeals of the remaining 125 mass-tort plaintiffs after presenting oral arguments on appeal
(S.D.N.Y.) – Obtained summary judgment against a bet-the-company veil piercing claim in a nine-figure breach of contract dispute
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Argued and prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of a Fortune 500 pipeline company, obtaining the complete dismissal of a fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference lawsuit brought in connection with the acquisition of a pipeline maintenance company
(Tex. Dist. – Jefferson County) – Argued and prevailed on a motion for summary judgment on behalf of an international construction company, obtaining the complete dismissal of a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit arising from our client’s construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal along the Texas Gulf Coast
(S.D. Tex.) – Obtained the complete dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of all claims asserted by a wrongful death Plaintiff under the federal Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act against the owner of one of the world’s largest petroleum refineries
(Tex. Dist. – Hidalgo County) – Obtained the Plaintiffs’ complete dismissal pursuant to Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code of a wrongful death lawsuit asserted against a Fortune 500 energy company arising from the death of a contractor at our client’s oil-drilling site; during same case, obtained the complete dismissal of cross-claims asserted against our client for business disparagement and defamation
(S.D. Tex.) – Obtained the Plaintiffs’ dismissals of series of mass-tort lawsuits arising from a fire at a midstream bulk liquids terminal owned by our client’s subsidiary
(E.D. Tex.) – Defeated an application for injunctive relief challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ reissuance of Nationwide Permit 12 and seeking to enjoin our client’s construction of a pipeline connecting its bulk liquids terminal in the Port of Beaumont to the largest refinery in North America
(Tex. Dist. – Jefferson County) – Obtained the Plaintiff’s dismissal of a wrongful death lawsuit against our client by drafting and filing a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 91a
(S.D. Ill.) – Defeated Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification in a case brought against a Fortune 500 pipeline company by a group of landowners alleging property damages resulting from an oil spill
(S.D. Tex.) – Assisted in negotiating and obtaining on behalf of a Fortune 500 life sciences company a pre-suit resolution of numerous putative radiation contamination claims under the Price Anderson Act
(E.D. Tex.) – Represented major building products manufacturer in products liability dispute alleging defects in the manufacture and construction of the property at issue
(AAA Arbitration) – Represented a major EPC contractor in asserting breach of contract claims against a project owner arising from our client’s construction of an ammonia plant along the Texas Gulf Coast
(Tex. Dist. – Harris County) – Represented a Fortune 500 midstream energy company in a breach of contract lawsuit against the operator of our client’s midstream rail terminal
(S.D. Tex.) – Defended an oilfield services company against claims for breach of contract and fraud arising from our client’s acquisition of the company
Education
Admissions
Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
CLE Events
Venue Selection for Energy Disputes
On Tuesday, March 17, Jim Thompson, Nick Shum, Stephanie Noble, and Matt Hoffman will lead a CLE program focused on venue selection considerations in energy sector contracts.
March 17, 2026
March 17, 2026 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2025 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 43 practice categories. In total, 133 attorneys are recognized, many in more than one category. Vinson & Elkins attorneys earned multiple special designations, such as “Leading Trial Lawyer,’ “Hall of Fame,” “Leading Partner,” “Next Generation Partner,” and “Leading Associate.”
June 11, 2025
June 11, 2025 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters) Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Attorneys to 2024 Texas Super Lawyers List; 16 to Rising Stars
September 19, 2024
September 19, 2024 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Solaris Announces Agreement to Acquire Mobile Energy Rentals
Vinson & Elkins advised Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure, Inc., an energy infrastructure company providing oilfield products, services, and infrastructure solutions, in its acquisition of Mobile Energy Rentals LLC, a supplier of mobile power source equipment including generators, transformers, and power distribution systems for electric companies and electric cooperatives.
July 10, 2024
July 10, 2024 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters) Names 37 Vinson & Elkins Attorneys to 2023 Texas Super Lawyers List
Super Lawyers has named 37 Vinson & Elkins lawyers across a range of the firm’s practice areas to the 2023 Texas Super Lawyers list.
September 18, 2023
September 18, 2023 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
In the latest result in a series of long-running legal actions where Vinson & Elkins is lead counsel representing the …
August 25, 2023
August 25, 2023 • 2-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.