close

Kevin P. Muck

Chair, Securities Litigation

Partner, Securities Litigation  

San Francisco 415.875.2384

Overview

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 Aradigm Corp. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers in action arising out of FDA decision not to approve drug. Case voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs; no appeal taken.
  • 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 international 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 Corp. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of California): Represented company and its officers. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • Gammel v. Hewlett Packard (U.S. District Court, Central District of California): Represented officer. Motion to dismiss granted in part; action settled thereafter.
  • In re Infoblox, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers. Case voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs; no appeal taken.
  • Costabile v. Natus Medical (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers. Two motions to dismiss granted; case dismissed with prejudice.
  • 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 Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of Nevada): Represent the former CEO in action arising out of FDA decision not to approve bladder cancer drug. Case pending.
  • In re Tesla, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represent the company, its CEO and its directors. Motion to dismiss pending.
  • 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.

Derivative Actions

  • 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 Adobe Systems Derivative Litigation (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented company and directors in derivative case regarding alleged antitrust violations. 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.
  • 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): Represented 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.
  • In re Symantec Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court): Represented board of Symantec in derivative case challenging executive compensation and validity of equity plan. Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice.
  • 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).
  • In re Uber Derivative Litigation (McElrath v. Kalanick) (Delaware Chancery Court): Represented directors of Uber in derivative litigation alleging that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Ottomotto and subsequent Waymo litigation. Motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice; appeal is pending.

Merger and Acquisition Litigation

  • Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County): Represented 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 Cepheid Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented company and directors in class actions challenging $4 billion acquisition. Litigation dismissed voluntarily.
  • In re Concur Tech. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court and Washington Superior Court): Represented company and directors in class actions challenging $8.3 billion acquisition. Actions were settled.
  • In re Corium Int’l, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and District of Delaware): Represented target company and directors in class actions challenging $500 million acquisition. Actions were settled.
  • 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 Infoblox Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Delaware Chancery Court): Represented target company and its directors in class action challenging acquisition. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction; motion to dismiss was thereafter granted with prejudice, and no appeal was taken.
  • In re Keynote Systems Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, San Mateo County): Represented target company and 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 acquirer (Micron Technology, Inc.) in class action challenging acquisition. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin shareholder vote; demurrer thereafter sustained with prejudice.
  • In re Loxo Oncology, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and District of Delaware): Represented target company and directors in class actions challenging $8 billion acquisition. Actions were settled.

Shareholder Disputes

  • 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 (California Superior Court, Alameda County): Represented Solta in dispute with shareholder of acquired company regarding alleged breach of merger agreement. Case was dismissed at the pleading stage and affirmed on appeal.
  • Wang v. Micropoint (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented company, its CEO and a Chinese affiliate in action brought by co-founder alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with stock transaction. Our motion for summary judgment was granted.
​​