Securities

• He is currently representing a major financial institution in a range of matters relating to that institution’s exposure to residential mortgage-backed assets, including a derivative suit and suits alleging claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and ERISA; he is also representing that institution and certain of its affiliates and officers in a purported class action under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act arising from the offering and sale of certain residential mortgage-backed securities.
• Mr. Fenrich has recently provided advice to Freddie Mac in connection with the Department of Justice’s investigation into mortgage-related losses at that company.
• Over the past few years, he has represented Morgan Stanley in various matters relating to short selling and prime brokerage activities, including In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation, dismissed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2007, on defendants’ motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a ruling that is now on appeal in Second Circuit; Overstock.com et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. and Avenius et al. v. Bank of America Securities, et al., actions currently pending in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County; and Taser International, Inc., et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co Incorporated, et al., currently pending in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
• He represented Credit Suisse First Boston in nationwide SEC, NASD and NYSE investigations of research analyst independence and certain IPO allocation practices, including the $1.4 billion industry-wide settlement of those investigations and the related obstruction of justice trials of former investment banker Frank Quattrone.
• He regularly represents financial institution clients in confidential internal, SEC and FINRA investigations. He is presently representing broker-dealers and hedge funds in regulatory investigations and examinations relating to possible selective dissemination of non-public information by equity research analysts and improper dissemination of rumors. He also regularly provides multiple financial institution clients with training and compliance advice on equity research, insider trading and market manipulation-related issues.
• Over his career, Mr. Fenrich has represented numerous clients in other securities-related investigations and litigation, including a software company and certain of its employees in connection with federal criminal and regulatory investigations into revenue recognition abuses; major auditing firms and a number of their partners in federal regulatory investigations relating to audits of public issuer clients; and an individual facing federal criminal insider trading charges.

Antitrust

• In addition to the In Re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation matter described above, Mr. Fenrich is representing AstraZeneca LP in Clayworth, et al. v. Pfizer, et al., an industry-wide indirect purchaser antitrust litigation that raises important issues under California antitrust law. In Clayworth, he argued successfully on behalf of all defendants at both the trial court (obtaining summary judgment) and at the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. Following argument the Court of Appeal issued a unanimous opinion holding, as a matter of first impression, that California law permits antitrust defendants to offer evidence that indirect purchaser-plaintiffs “passed on,” and did not absorb, alleged overcharges. Clayworth, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., 165 Cal. App. 4th 209, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 45 (July 25, 2008; modified Aug. 18, 2008). The California Supreme Court has granted review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, and the parties are in the midst of merits briefing.
• In a related matter, he represented AstraZeneca PLC in In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation, a putative class action brought in federal court in Minnesota by indirect purchasers alleging that pharmaceutical manufacturers conspired to prevent importation of drugs from Canada in violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants defeated the complaint on a motion to dismiss, and that judgment was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
• Earlier this decade, he successfully represented F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd in Empagran et al. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd et al., including briefing in the U.S. Supreme Court (see 542 U.S. 155 (2004)) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  

• Partner, 2005-present
• Associate, 1999-2005

• Law Clerk, Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 1998-1999
• Law Clerk, Hon. Loretta A. Preska, U.S. District Court, S.D. New York 1997-1998

• In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation

• Davis Polk Publishes Comprehensive Financial Crisis Manual

• AstraZeneca Wins Before California State Court of Appeals

• SEC Enforcement Division Releases Detailed Information Regarding Cooperation Initiatives
  Client Newsflash

• SEC Enforcement Director Introduces New Unit Chiefs and Cooperation Initiatives
  Client Newsflash

• Abuse of Non-GAAP Measures: SEC Brings First Regulation G Enforcement Action
  Client Newsflash

• Representative Kanjorski Releases Investor Protection, Private Investment Fund Advisers Registration and Federal Insurance Office Proposals
  Client Memorandum

• General Counsel Update
  SEC Settlement Underscores Value of Regulation FD Training and Compliance Programs

• The Davis Polk Financial Crisis Manual
  A Guide to the Laws, Regulations and Contracts of the Financial Crisis

• SEC Announces Significant Enforcement Initiatives
  Client Newsflash

• SEC v. Dorozhko: The Second Circuit’s View of Section 10(b) “Deception”
  Client Newsflash

• SEC v. Cuban: A New Decision Casts Doubt on a Key SEC Position on Insider Trading
  Client Newsflash

• Investor Protection Act of 2009
  Client Newsflash

• Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009
  Client Newsflash

• Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - Update
  Client Newsflash

• Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
  Client Newsflash

• Important Antitrust Decision: California Court of Appeal Affirms Availability of Antitrust Pass-On Defense in Clayworth - Argument for Pharmaceutical Industry Defendants Handled by Davis Polk
  Client Newsflash