Matthew Bialick

Matthew represents lenders in distressed and undersecured credit relationships, frequently where fraud, asset conversion or insider misconduct has compromised recovery prospects. He manages the full recovery process: conducting investigations, negotiating forbearance agreements, pursuing guarantors and insiders, and coordinating litigation, receivership and bankruptcy actions.

Beyond distressed credits, Matthew handles loan participation and intercreditor disputes, conducts portfolio reviews to identify collateral defects and fraud, and drafts custom loan documents and disclosure templates for lenders. The common thread is the point where the legal position and the financial reality intersect: what can be recovered, which assets can be protected and how the available remedies restore value and control.

Banking and creditors’ rights

Matthew represents business clients in complex commercial disputes and transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, that demand both creativity and discipline. Many arise when standard legal paths will not achieve a practical result and require a tailored combination of litigation, negotiation and financial analysis.

He evaluates the record alongside the business objective: preserving value, limiting disruption and finding a workable resolution when competing pressures leave few straightforward options.

Commercial litigation

Matthew’s agricultural work spans finance, workouts and litigation involving farms, agribusinesses and agricultural assets. He advises banks on credit-policy design, portfolio exposure analysis and liquidation strategy for livestock, crop and equipment lending. His work has included advising banks throughout the country, subject to applicable jurisdictional requirements.

His experience includes disputes with farm-product buyers, competing agricultural liens and grain-fronting arrangements, as well as unwinding insider transfers, tracing misappropriated assets, and addressing farmer lender mediation, troubled livestock credits and distressed FSA guaranteed loans. His current litigation practice also includes a dispute involving an agricultural trust.

Matthew’s appellate work has helped shape Minnesota agricultural finance law. In Lighthouse Management Inc. v. Oberg Family Farms, he was counsel for American Federal Bank in the published appeal establishing a fact-specific test for classifying grain bins as fixtures or personal property.

In Star Bank v. Anderson, Matthew and James Magnuson represented Star Bank in an appeal affirming enforcement of its security interest in corn sold through a grain-fronting arrangement. The July 2024 opinion is nonprecedential.

Matthew is a forthcoming presenter at the American Bankers Association’s national Agricultural Bankers Conference, November 4–6, 2026, in Minneapolis. His speaking record also includes agricultural lending and workout programs for Minnesota banking organizations. See programs and presentations.

Agricultural litigation and bankruptcyAgricultural finance and workouts

Matthew’s litigation practice also includes selected disputes involving public statements, privacy claims and First Amendment defenses. His academic background includes service as managing student editor of Constitutional Commentary at the University of Minnesota Law School.

The work calls for close attention to the original statement, its context, the evidence and the legal theory asserted. His approach draws on the same disciplined analysis that informs his financial and commercial disputes.

First Amendment and privacy litigation

Matthew secured dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Haley Kalil in Kalil v. Kalil, a landmark privacy case involving social media and public figures in Minnesota. The September 17, 2026 federal court order dismissed the complaint on the merits.

His work included briefing and argument on the defense motion to dismiss, with Karl Johnson also serving as defense counsel. The court held that the challenged remarks concerned a matter of legitimate public concern under Minnesota privacy law and did not reach the separate First Amendment argument. Read the result and the court’s order.