close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Nearly 15 percent of Fenwick partners named America's Leading Lawyers for Business by Chambers USA and Chambers Global
  • Selected as a "Go-To" law firm by in-house legal departments at Fortune 500 companies in Corporate Counsel magazine
  • Named to The National Law Journal's inaugural "Intellectual Property Hot List" for outstanding patent, copyright, trademark and IP litigation services

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200

Kevin P. Muck

Chair, Securities Litigation

Partner, Securities Litigation

icon partner 415.875.2384  

Kevin Muck is Chair of the Securities Litigation Group. Kevin’s practice focuses on defending issuers, officers, directors and venture investors in shareholder disputes, securities class actions and derivative litigation throughout the country. He has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including telecommunications, life sciences, software, financial services, semiconductor, Internet, entertainment and consumer retail. He also routinely advises clients on corporate governance and disclosure issues, and has extensive experience handling internal and board investigations regarding such matters as accounting issues, executive compensation, insider trading and option granting practices. In addition, Kevin represents companies and individuals in matters brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory authorities.

Kevin has been recognized by Chambers USA as one of the leading securities litigation attorneys in California as well as a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in the area of securities litigation, corporate governance & compliance. He is a frequent lecturer on issues involving securities matters, fiduciary duties and class action litigation. Among the publications Kevin has co-authored are "Defending Securities Class Actions" (American Law Institute – American Bar Association) and "Procedural Considerations in Litigating Class and Representative Claims Under Business and Professions Code Section 17200" (Glasser Legal Works).

Prior to joining Fenwick & West, Kevin was a partner with Clifford Chance and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison.

Among the notable matters Kevin has handled are the following:

Securities Class Actions

  • In re Bay Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss granted; affirmed on appeal.
  • In re Cisco Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers and directors. Action settled.
  • In re COPIA Bond Litigation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California): Represented law firm in securities class action. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re Equinix, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers. Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice; no appeal taken.
  • In re Green Dot Corporation Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California): Represented company and its officers. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re Hewlett-Packard Company Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California): Represent officer of the company. Motion to dismiss pending.
  • In re Input/Output Corp. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas): Represented the company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re Lexar Media, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss granted; affirmed on appeal.
  • In re Spendthrift Farm, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and Eastern District of Kentucky): Represented underwriter. Summary judgment motion granted in one action with attorneys' fees awarded to client (affirmed on appeal). Motion to dismiss granted in the other action; affirmed on appeal by both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (1F.3d 1487) and United States Supreme Court (514 U.S. 211).
  • In re VMware, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California): Represented the company and its officers. Action dismissed voluntarily; no appeal taken.
  • Wurtman v. E*TRADE Financial, Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented the company. Class certification denied; affirmed on appeal.

Derivative Actions

  • Amalgamated Bank v. Chambers (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented Cisco and its officers and directors in action challenging executive compensation. Demurrer sustained.
  • In re Cisco Systems, Inc. Derivative Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss federal case granted; state case settled thereafter.
  • Collins v. Concur Technologies, et al. (Washington Superior Court, King County): Represented Concur Technologies in derivative litigation challenging executive compensation. Motion to dismiss was granted.
  • In re drugstore.com Derivative Litigation (Washington Superior Court, King County): Represented the company's directors (including Melinda Gates, Jeff Bezos and John Doerr). Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Derivative Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented Compensation Committee and Audit Committee members in derivative action. Case settled.
  • In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. Derivative Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represent company and its officers and directors. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented officers of NVIDIA in derivative action. Case settled.
  • Seinfeld v. Bartz (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented Cisco and its directors in a case under §14(a) of the 1934 Act. Motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal (322 F.3d 693).

Merger and Acquisition Litigation

  • Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County): Represent the target company and its directors in alleged class action arising out of acquisition by Electronic Arts Inc. Motion to enjoin merger defeated; case settled thereafter.
  • In re Covad Communications Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court and California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represent target company, its Chairman and its CEO in class actions arising out of acquisition. Both actions dismissed voluntarily.
  • In re Data Domain, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court and California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented target company and its directors in class action challenging proposed acquisition. Actions dismissed voluntarily.
  • In re Interwoven Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court): Represented target company and its directors in class action challenging acquisition. Action was settled.
  • In re Lexar Media, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, Alameda County): Represented target company, its directors and its acquiror (Micron Technology, Inc.) in class action challenging acquisition. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin shareholder vote; demurrer thereafter sustained with prejudice, judgment entered in favor of defendants, and no appeal taken.
  • In re Stratagene Corp. Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, San Diego County): Represented Agilent Technologies, Inc. in connection with acquisition of life sciences company. Action was voluntarily dismissed.
  • In re Transmeta Corp. Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented target company and its directors in class action challenging acquisition. Action was settled.

 Shareholder Disputes

  • Amir v. FastForward Networks (California Superior Court, San Francisco County): Represented company and directors in claim by co-founder of private company that his ownership interest was improperly diminished. Action settled.
  • Ariyoshi v. Kalbrener (Hawaii Circuit Court, First Circuit): Represent officers and directors of a private company in suit by common shareholders alleging they were improperly "frozen out" by board, management and venture investors. Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice and attorneys’ fees awarded to client.
  • Clement v. Solta Medical, Inc. (California Superior Court, Alameda County): Represent Solta Medical in dispute with shareholder of acquired company regarding alleged breach of merger agreement. Demurrer sustained with prejudice.
  • Kalashian v. Advent (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented directors and investors in claim by founders that their ownership interest was improperly diminished. Action settled.
  • Riley v. Horsley (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented officers and directors of Transmeta Corporation in dispute with company’s largest shareholder. Action was voluntarily dismissed.
  • Value Capital v. McInerney (California Superior Court, San Francisco County): Represented directors in claim brought by private company investor alleging misappropriation of corporate opportunity. Action was voluntarily dismissed after two demurrers were sustained.

 

 

About Kevin