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 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 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 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 (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.

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): 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.
  • 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).

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 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 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 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 acquiror (Micron Technology, Inc.) in class action challenging acquisition. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin shareholder vote; demurrer thereafter sustained with prejudice.
  • In re SuccessFactors Shareholder Litigation (California Superior Court, San Mateo County): Represented target company and directors in class action challenging acquisition. Action was 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, Inc. (California Superior Court, Alameda County): Represent Solta in dispute with shareholder of acquired company regarding alleged breach of merger agreement.
  • 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.

 

​​