close

Kevin P. Muck

Chair, Securities Litigation

Partner, Securities Litigation  

San Francisco 415.875.2384

Overview

中文

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

Kevin is recognized by Chambers USA as one of the leading securities litigators in California and as a Northern California Super Lawyer in securities litigation, corporate governance, and compliance, while Legal 500 has described him as “an outstanding litigator who can handle any matter and is terrific in court.” He is a frequent lecturer on issues involving securities matters, fiduciary duties and class action litigation, and has excellent relationships with all major D&O insurers.

Among the notable securities litigation 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. Action dismissed voluntarily; no appeal taken.
  • In re Baozun, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York): Represents company in action filed after announcement of reduced guidance. Case pending.
  • 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 Cloudera, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represents company and officers in action filed after announcement of reduced guidance. Case pending.
  • In re COPIA Bond Litigation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California): Represented major 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.
  • In re Infoblox, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented the company and its officers. Case dismissed by plaintiffs; no appeal taken.
  • In re King Digital Entertainment PLC Securities Litigation (California Superior Court, San Francisco County): Represented the company and its officers and directors in class action challenging disclosures in the company’s IPO registration statement. Demurrer sustained in part; case settled thereafter.
  • 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. Case 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.
  • In re WageWorks, Inc. Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represent the former CEO in action filed after accounting restatement. Case pending.

Derivative Actions

  • 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; no appeal taken.
  • Bader v. Anderson (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented Apple and officers and directors in action challenging executive compensation. Demurrer sustained with prejudice and affirmed on appeal (179 Cal. App. 4th 775).
  • 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 board in litigation challenging executive compensation. Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • In re drugstore.com Derivative Litigation (Washington Superior Court, King County): Represented board (including Jeff Bezos, John Doerr and Melinda Gates). Motion to dismiss granted; no appeal taken.
  • 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 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’s board in action challenging proxy disclosures. 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; affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court.

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.
  • 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 the company’s $500 million acquisition. Actions were settled.
  • In re Cray Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Washington Superior Court, King County and U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington): Represented target company and directors in class actions challenging the company’s $1.3 billion 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 Fitbit, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Southern District of New York and District of Delaware): Represented target company and directors in class actions challenging $2 billion acquisition. Actions were settled.
  • 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 Lexar Media, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, Alameda County): Represented target company and its directors 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 an $8 billion acquisition. Actions were settled.
  • In re Nimble Storage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented target company and directors in class actions challenging a $1 billion acquisition. Following successful opposition to motion for preliminary injunction, actions were settled.

Other 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. Demurrer sustained with prejudice; affirmed on appeal.
  • Olagues v. Musk (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California): Represented four directors of Tesla in action seeking recovery of alleged short-swing profits under Section 16(b) of the 1934 Act.  Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice; appeal dismissed.
  • Tseng v. GluMobile, Inc. (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County): Represented company in action by a shareholder and former officer of an acquired company. Demurrer sustained; case dismissed with prejudice.
  • Wang v. Micropoint Bioscience, Inc. (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. Motion for summary judgment granted; motion for award of attorneys’ fees pending.
​​​​​​​