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 >

FLEX by Fenwick is the only service created by an AmLaw 100 firm that provides flexible and cost-effective solutions for interim in-house legal needs to high-growth companies.  MORE >

Fenwick & West handles significant cross-border legal and business issues for a wide range of technology and life sciences who operate internationally..  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:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney


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

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

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

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036

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

Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Issues Key Ruling on Pleading of Loss Causation in Securities Class Actions

Loos v. Immersion Corp., et. al., Case No. 12-15100, ---F.3d--- (9th Cir. 2014)

On August 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit issued a key opinion on the pleading of loss causation in securities class actions, ruling for the first time that the mere announcement of an internal investigation, standing alone, is insufficient to establish loss causation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed as well that earnings releases announcing disappointing financial results were also insufficient by themselves to meet the loss causation requirement. The decision in Loos v. Immersion Corp., et. al.has significant ramifications for companies that disclose an internal investigation or announce financial results falling short of market expectations, and for the securities fraud litigation those companies may consequently face.


Defendant Immersion Corp. and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a series of shareholder class actions filed in late 2009, claiming that defendants had made various false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial condition. Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, securities fraud plaintiffs are required to plead the element of loss causation, i.e., that the alleged misrepresentations by defendants were a “substantial cause” of losses suffered by shareholders, and that such losses were not attributable to other factors such as changing market or industry conditions.

Plaintiffs attempted to satisfy this element by pointing to a number of purported “corrective disclosures” made by Immersion consisting of: 1) various earnings releases announcing financial results that fell short of market expectations; and 2) an announcement of an internal investigation into historical revenue transactions. Each of these disclosures was followed by a decline in Immersion’s stock price, which plaintiffs alleged caused damage to members of the shareholder class.

The district court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice for failure to plead loss causation, as well as for failure to properly plead scienter.

The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that mere announcement of disappointing earnings does not “reveal any information from which revenue accounting fraud might reasonably be inferred,” and thus could not support a finding of loss causation. The opinion followed prior Ninth Circuit precedent that required “a securities fraud plaintiff to allege that the market ‘learned of and reacted to th[e] fraud, as opposed to merely reacting to reports of the defendant’s poor financial health generally.’”

The Ninth Circuit also ruled for the first time that announcement of an internal investigation by a Company is not sufficient by itself to establish loss causation, as “announcement of an investigation does not ‘reveal’ fraudulent practices to the market. Indeed, at the moment an investigation is announced, the market cannot possibly know what the investigation will ultimately reveal.” In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Meyer v. Greene, 2013 WL 656500 (11th Cir. Feb. 25, 2013), which held that the disclosure of an SEC informal inquiry and subsequent private order of investigation could not serve as a corrective disclosure for purposes of loss causation, as they did not “reveal to the market that a company’s previous statements were false or fraudulent.”

Implications of the Immersion Decision

Securities class action lawsuits are frequently filed following a Company announcement of an internal investigation or investigation by government regulators, often without regard to whether there has been any announcement of wrongdoing. The Ninth Circuit has joined a growing body of courts at the appellate and district court level that has rejected the notion that such announcements can satisfy the loss causation requirement, thus potentially bolstering the defense of such actions at the pleading stage and beyond. The Immersion decision will also be helpful authority for defendants in securities fraud cases where plaintiffs attempt to satisfy loss causation by asserting that the announcement of unfavorable financial results by itself is a veiled disclosure of fraud.​​​​