Jeremy W. Gagas

Jeremy W. Gagas

Associate

Jeremy Gagas is an associate in the Wilmington office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where his practice focuses on corporate governance litigation and counseling.

During law school, Jeremy was a legal intern at the Penn Law Civil Practice Clinic, and he served as a judicial intern to Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Experience

Jeremy Gagas is an associate in the Wilmington office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where his practice focuses on corporate governance litigation and counseling.

Education

J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2018Cum Laude; Executive Editor, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law
B.A., Religion and Politics, and B.A., Philosophy, Lafayette College, 2015Summa Cum Laude

Associations and Memberships

Member, Delaware State Bar Association
Member, American Bar Association

Admissions

State Bar of Delaware
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Credentials

Education

J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2018Cum Laude; Executive Editor, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law
B.A., Religion and Politics, and B.A., Philosophy, Lafayette College, 2015Summa Cum Laude

Associations and Memberships

Member, Delaware State Bar Association
Member, American Bar Association

Admissions

State Bar of Delaware
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

Recent Insights

Client Highlights

On March 2, 2023, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a securities class action filed against Wilson Sonsini clients MacroGenics, Inc. and its CEO and CFO. The complaint concerned statements made by the defendants regarding the results of MacroGenics’ Phase III clinical trial of a therapeutic used to treat patients with late-stage metastatic breast cancer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made misleading statements by disclosing that the clinical trial met one of its primary endpoints (“progression free survival”), but not simultaneously disclosing data regarding another still accruing endpoint (“overall survival”) and stating that overall survival showed a “preliminary positive trend.” In September 2021, Judge Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misrepresentation or omission and the allegations failed to raise a strong inference of scienter.

Learn More

Client Highlights

On May 13, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a decision dismissing a lawsuit filed in state court against Dropbox, its officers, its board of directors, the underwriters, and certain venture capitalists for alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act). The suit arose out of Dropbox’s March 2018 IPO, with the plaintiff alleging that Dropbox made false or misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus. Dropbox moved to dismiss, invoking its Federal Forum Provision (FFP)—a bylaw that states that any lawsuit brought under the ’33 Act must be brought in federal court. Building upon the firm’s win in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, in which the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed the validity of FFPs, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s ruling that Dropbox’s FFP did not violate the ‘33 Act’s anti-waiver or anti-removal provisions, was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and was enforceable under California law. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Dropbox in the matter.

Learn More