Michael Breslin focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and emerging technologies, including telecommunications, fintech innovations, payments, blockchain and cryptocurrency. He represents individuals and companies, both plaintiffs and defendants, in litigation in state and federal courts and in arbitrations. Mr. Breslin has direct experience litigating claims involving confidential information and computer systems protection, trade secrets, cryptocurrency theft, false claims act claims, and complex contract disputes, as well as class action defense. He is a member of Kilpatrick Townsend's Complex Commercial Litigation team and chairs the firm’s Fintech Industry Team. He is skilled in electronic discovery and computer forensics evidence, and has represented some of the nation’s largest technology-focused service providers and retailers, including Fortune 500 companies, in a variety of litigation and technology transaction matters.
Mr. Breslin has been recognized as a Georgia "Rising Star" for General Litigation in 2020 and the nine years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine.
Counseled client in transactions to become first major wireless service provider to accept cryptocurrency payments from subscribers.
Successfully defended and resolved numerous arbitrations involving claims of stolen cryptocurrency on behalf of Fortune 100 company.
Representing a global leader in information solutions in numerous individual and class actions arising out of consumer credit and credit rating disputes.
Represented clients, including temporary staffing agencies and a worldwide provider of consumer transaction technologies, in the defense of multiple class actions involving claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Represented clients in obtaining approval of class action settlements and administrating class settlement funds.
Represented major physician staffing and placement firm in an action against a competitor and former employee to recover trade secret computer data (including customer and client data) misappropriated from our client’s secure database. The case ultimately settled, with the defendants agreeing to reimburse our client for its attorneys’ fees and agreeing to injunctive relief protecting our client’s data.
Represented Compuware Corporation, a storage and systems management software company, in litigation related to software licensing and implementation project.
Served as local counsel and lead trial counsel for Dash Crofts, of Seals & Crofts, a popular 1970s folk rock group, in a federal lawsuit raising claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages. Reduced the amount in controversy to approximately $2 million by filing a successful motion for summary judgment. Tried the remaining issues to a jury, which returned a defense verdict on the breach of contract and punitive damages claims and awarded zero dollars in damages on the fiduciary duty claim.
Represents an engineering and manufacturing firm accused of developing machinery using the confidential information and trade secrets of a supplier of the same type of machinery in breach of a distribution agreement and trade secret statutes. The matter involves AAA Arbitration in Chicago, Illinois, that is being administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution – AAA because the contract concerns international arbitration. The opposing party resisted arbitration and the firm first had to secure orders in federal courts in W.D. of Washington and N.D. of Illinois before arbitration of all disputes was compelled by the court in the N.D. of Illinois.
Achieved favorable settlement on behalf of client on its claims for breach of mortgage loan purchase agreement.
The firm served as lead counsel in litigation against our client’s insurance broker and several major insurance carriers, including AIG, Travelers, Zurich and ACE, alleging that various agreements between the carriers and the broker providing for payment of so-called “back end” or “contingent” commissions violated Florida law. The lawsuit included claims for breach of fiduciary duty, RICO, antitrust conspiracy and other Florida state law claims. Disagreeing with rulings (later overturned by the Third Circuit) entered by a federal court in New Jersey rejecting federal antitrust and RICO claims alleged in a putative nationwide class action, the Florida trial court issued what was the first significant ruling upholding the state law causes of action that had been alleged. After three more years of vigorous litigation and discovery involving production by defendants of more than 18 million pages of documents and 38 depositions, the case settled on terms favorable to the client. Office Depot, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 21 Mealey’s Litig. Rep. Ins. Bad Faith 20; 2007 WL 3339228 (Fla. Cir .Ct., Palm Beach County Sept. 24, 2007).
Insights View All
University of Georgia School of Law J.D. (2005) cum laude
University of Georgia B.B.A. (2002) Management of Information Systems, focus in French, summa cum laude
Georgia Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
State Bar of Georgia, Technology Section, Executive Committee, Member
Law360's 2021 Fintech Editorial Advisory Board, Member
Atlanta Bar Association, Litigation Section, Board of Directors, Member-at-Large (2022-2023)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.