Matthew Maggay
Matthew Maggay
Matthew is a third-year law student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law pursuing a J.D. with a certificate in Corporate and Commercial Law. Matthew grew up in Los Angeles, California, but later moved to Wisconsin where he graduated from Marquette University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physiological Sciences. Before attending the Sturm College of Law, Matthew worked in-house for AmWins Group, Inc, a global insurance company based out of Charlotte, North Carolina.
In addition to serving as a Senior Editor of Race to the Bottom, Matthew is also President of the Moot Court Board. After his first year of law school, Matthew interned at Ritsema Law, P.C., where he handled complex employment litigation. Currently between his second and third years of law school, Matthew is working as a law clerk at 3 Pillars Law, a boutique firm specializing in real estate investments and syndications.
While he is interested in many areas of corporate law, Matthew has specific interests in private equity, real estate, and corporate governance. In his free time, Matthew enjoys spending time in the mountains and recreating modern, popular songs on the cello.
KPMG has established KPMG Law US, a subsidiary of KPMG LLP, becoming the first Big Four accounting firm to own a law firm operating in the U.S. legal market. (KPMG, Press Release). KPMG is a global tax and advisory corporation with a workforce of more than 275,000 workers across 142 countries. Id. In a historic move, the Arizona Supreme Court recently granted KPMG the approval to act as an Alternative Business Structure (“ABS”) and offer clients legal services. (Sara Merken, Reuters). This post will discuss the context behind KPMG’s entry into the legal market and the far-reaching implications of this decision, including ethical implications and market disruption.
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) companies are facing serious backlash for allegations of creating false narratives, taking copyrighted work without consent, and the prevalent spread of deep fakes (photos, videos, etc., that are created by artificial intelligence to depict a person that looks real) on the internet. (Dani Di Placido, Forbes). These allegations led several prominent organizations such as Thomson Reuters, Sony, and The New York Times to file suit against AI companies, including OpenAI and Microsoft. (Kate Knibbs, Wired). Among the many challenges that come with filing lawsuits, plaintiffs suing AI companies have a particular challenge to conquer in addressing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). This article examines the CDA, how Section 230 applies to AI systems, relevant court decisions, and how these legal interpretations may evolve as both the law and AI technology advance.
In January 2025, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a tax case that provides the Court with an opportunity to rule on the narrow, yet contested, question of due process regarding mootness of Tax Court challenges. Commissioner v. Zuch, No. 24-416, 2025 WL 65915, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2025). Zuch reached the Supreme Court after the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) petitioned to reverse a Third Circuit opinion regarding I.R.C. § 6330 due process claims. The ruling disagreed with the IRS’s argument that underlying tax liability becomes moot upon fulfilled payment of unpaid taxes by any means. Zuch v. Commissioner, 97 F.4th 81, 94 (3d Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. Commissioner v. Zuch, No. 24-416, 2025 WL 65915 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2025). This Third Circuit opinion conflicts with the D.C. and Fourth Circuits, which ruled that § 6330 claims are moot once the IRS abandons its levy and concedes that no tax liability remains. (Tristan Navera & John Woolley, Bloomberg); McLane v. Commissioner, 24 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2022); Willson v. Commissioner, 805 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (affirming Tax Court's dismissal of claims as moot after the IRS abated taxpayer’s underlying tax liability upon which a levy could be placed). If the Supreme Court returns a ruling for Zuch, US taxpayers would gain confidence in disputing IRS levies under § 6330 and face less obstacles to obtaining jurisdiction in US Tax Court. This article recounts the details and events leading to Commissioner v. Zuch and analyses how a Supreme Court verdict could change how due process is weighed in US Tax Court cases.
At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee, on July 27, 2024, then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump pledged to make the United States the “‘crypto capital of the planet’” and laid out his vision for a crypto-friendly administration. (MacKenzie Sigalos, CNBC). At first glance, this statement may seem like just another campaign promise; however, on January 23, 2025, President Trump signed the “Strengthening American Leadership In Digital Financial Technology” Executive Order. (The White House). The Executive Order outlines the Trump Administration’s plans to follow through on its promise to encourage digital asset growth in the United States and revokes both President Biden's “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets” Executive Order and the Department of the Treasury's "Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets." Id. With news of a crypto-friendly presidential administration and Bitcoin prices soaring, 2025 could prove to be a prosperous year for Bitcoin and decentralized finance. This paper argues that while some may still be skeptical about cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin's recent success will preview digital assets becoming more common and popular throughout the United States and the rest of the world.
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or “the Act”) is back in force after the Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s (“DOJ”) application to stay a nationwide enjoinment of the act. (John Woolley & Tristan Navera, Bloomberg). The stay comes during the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland where a Federal District Court in Texas granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against the Act. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, No. 4:24-CV-478, 2024 WL 4953814 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2024). This article examines the background and consequences of the CTA as well as political factors that may influence the Act’s future.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has recently intensified its scrutiny of artificial intelligence (“AI”) fraud by targeting misleading claims about AI in the investment space. (SEC Press Release). This enforcement effort, focused on preventing a deceptive marketing tactic called “AI washing,” aligns with a broader regulatory trend focused on ensuring transparency in AI disclosures. Id. The SEC has pursued enforcement actions against public companies and investment advisers that exaggerate their AI capabilities or falsely claim to integrate AI into decision-making processes. (Kevin Friedmann, et. al., Norton Rose Fulbright). As AI technology becomes more prevalent in financial and corporate sectors, companies must navigate these regulations carefully to maintain compliance and investor confidence. This post examines the SEC’s enforcement actions, anticipates the agency’s future focus, and explores the implications for advisors and businesses that use AI.
On January 20, 2025, China sent shockwaves through the tech industry when it launched its very own artificial intelligence model—DeepSeek. (Ben Cohen, The Wall Street Journal). DeepSeek is an open-source AI model that its backers claim is more cost-effective than its rivals, including the U.S.’s OpenAI. (Forbes). According to reports, DeepSeek’s founder Liang Wenfreng developed the AI model with just $1.4 million in capital. (Ty Roush, Forbes). Meanwhile, DeepSeek’s largest rival, OpenAI, cost more than $100 million to develop, according to its CEO Sam Altman. (Katharina Buchholz, Forbes). The disparity between these figures and the drop in U.S. tech stocks has sparked fears among leading tech companies in the U.S. that Chinese outfits will soon overtake them. (Brian Cheung et al., NBC News). However, this article explores why the development of DeepSeek may very well be beneficial to America’s dominance in the AI realm, should U.S. tech companies be up for the challenge.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or the “Commission”) announced a final rule targeting buying and selling fake reviews and testimonials on August 14, 2024. (Mitchell J. Katz, FTC.gov). This final rule is the result of a two-year process initiated in 2022 with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking followed by a notice of proposed rulemaking in June 2023, and finally an informal hearing on the proposed rulemaking in February of 2024. Id. The final rule was then announced on August 14, 2024, where the Commission outlined activities the rule will regulate, primarily the buying, selling, or fabricating of fake online reviews and testimonials. Id. Fake online reviews can pop up anytime something is sold or rated online, ranging from travel review sites to e-commerce businesses to paid influencer testimonials, and make up an estimated 16% to 40% of all online reviews. (Heidi Mitchell, Wall Street Journal). According to FTC Chair Lina Khan, the final rule is necessary because fake reviews “not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors.” (Mitchell J. Katz, FTC.gov). Confusingly, however, in the FTC’s federal register notice of the final rule (a detailed document which accompanies all FTC rulemaking), the Commission stated that the buying and selling of fake reviews was already illegal under Section 5 of the FTC Act. (15 U.S.C. § 45; FTC, Final Register Notice). This begs the question, why was this new rulemaking necessary? This post examines why the Commission deems this rule necessary, what activities the final rule prohibits, and how it can be used to help consumers.
Consumers and states are bringing lawsuits against social media conglomerate Meta, seeking billions in damages and substantial change to the company’s allegedly addictive technologies. (Naomi Nix, The Washington Post). Meta runs Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and other popular technology platforms. (Meta.com). Despite the company’s commitment to “keeping people safe and making a positive impact,” many users and state governments believe Meta leverages addictive methods to encourage teen engagement on Instagram and Facebook. (Meta.com; Jonathan Stempel et al., Reuters). States and individuals are pushing for Meta to take accountability for its addictive algorithms and make changes to protect the mental health of its minor Instagram and Facebook users, which would likely affect company policies and Meta’s stakeholders. (Meta.com; Jonathan Stempel et al., Reuters). This post considers the social media policies giving rise to widespread claims against Meta, as well as the potential effects of such claims.
Strikes have flooded the news headlines for the past years, as thirty-three significant strikes occurred in 2023, with an estimated 462,000 workers engaged in those strikes. (Chris Isidore, CNN). Boeing was unable to escape the strike fever in 2024, as workers demanded a 40% raise in wages and the reinstatement of pension benefits. (Niraj Chokshi, New York Times). Due to the massive impact the strike had on the company, Boeing and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the “Union”) announced a negotiated proposal (“Proposed Deal”) subject to voting on October 23rd, 2024. (IAM District 751). Ultimately, the Proposed Deal was rejected by a 64% vote. (IAM District 751). This article discusses the key elements of the Proposed Deal and how it sheds light on the greater narrative of Boeing’s fragile state of dwindling finances, reputation, and relationship with its workers.