Founder and Managing Member, Schwartz & Associates, PC
Lou Schwartz founded Schwartz & Associates, PC in 2006. He trained as a corporate securities and M&A lawyer and has served as a chief executive and board chair of public and private companies in digital media, streaming and technology.
Admitted to practice in Georgia, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia.
The dismissal illustrates how courts are scrutinizing crypto-sector disclosure claims and sets a pleading-stage benchmark relevant to other securities suits over AML and regulatory-compliance statements.
The recall adds to mounting FDA scrutiny of compounded GLP-1 products and could generate consumer injury and product-liability inquiries alongside other compounding-related litigation.
The ruling signals Delaware courts' willingness to let fraud and earnout claims proceed past the pleading stage in merger disputes, a theory relevant to other sellers pursuing post-closing earnout and integration-promise claims against acquirers.
The ruling keeps alive claims seeking more than $5 billion in damages and could shape how courts evaluate exclusive-dealing and tying theories in other platform-lock-in consumer antitrust cases.
The ruling could shape how companies draft and litigate antitrust-closing-condition obligations in future mega-mergers, a question of direct interest to shareholders in failed large-scale deals.
A successful challenge would block a merger affecting pricing and quality for public institutions nationwide and signals continued FTC scrutiny of serial roll-up acquisitions by private equity-owned companies.
Section 12(j) revocation proceedings strip a company's securities of their registered status, which can eliminate trading markets and complicate recovery efforts for existing shareholders of delinquent filers.
A recall of this scale covering widely distributed ready-to-eat meat products can generate foodborne-illness complaints and product-liability inquiries that plaintiff firms track alongside other large food-safety recalls.
The decision is an early test of how Delaware courts will police special-committee conduct and founder-control preservation schemes under the state's revised corporate law framework, relevant to investors in other dual-class companies.
The ruling illustrates how Delaware's high court applies fiduciary and business-opportunity doctrines to disputes over control of jointly owned ventures, a framework relevant to other closely held company and litigation-finance ownership fights.
The approval confirms a sizable recovery path for consumers in a major bank data breach case and offers a benchmark for valuing claims in other pending financial-sector breach litigation.
The ruling raises the bar for plaintiffs seeking classwide treatment of consumer deception claims tied to statements buyers may not have uniformly seen, a theory relevant to other vehicle and tech marketing class actions.
The articulated knowledge standard could shape both future FTC enforcement and private claims against payment processors accused of facilitating deceptive merchant conduct.
Keeping a major pharmacy benefit manager in the opioid MDL bellwether pool preserves a litigation track that could shape settlement values for thousands of other PBM-related opioid claims.
Quality-control recalls of widely sold over-the-counter drugs can generate consumer complaints and potential product-liability inquiries that plaintiff firms track alongside the broader acetaminophen litigation landscape.
The verdict will be the second data point on infection-based claims in a docket of roughly 4,100 pending PowerPort cases and will further inform how both sides value remaining claims.
Georgia lets LLC members write almost any rules they want, and fills every gap with defaults that rarely match the deal. These eight sections decide who owns, who votes, who pays and how someone leaves.
Georgia enforces non-competes that are reasonable in time, area and scope, but only against certain employees. Here is who can be bound, how long a restriction can last and what a court can do with an overbroad clause.
Without a written operating agreement, Georgia law splits profits and distributions equally and gives each member one vote, whatever each person invested. Here is what the default rules say and what to put in writing.
A nondisclosure agreement protects information only if the information is actually kept confidential and the agreement is drafted to fit Georgia and federal law. Three provisions matter more than the rest.
Georgia sets a default interest rate when the note is silent, caps small loans, makes interest above 5 percent per month a crime and applies a specific formula to attorney's fee clauses. A clear written note avoids most of the trouble.
For leases entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2024, Georgia caps security deposits at two months' rent, implies a habitability term and requires a three-business-day notice before an eviction filing for unpaid rent. A lease drafted before then may need updating.
Federal tax rules, federal wage law and Georgia unemployment law each test whether a worker is really a contractor, and each looks at how the work is done in practice. The federal wage-law test is also in the middle of a rule change.
The payout shows the FTC continuing to enforce consumer-redress obligations under a settled e-commerce shipping and refund case, a pattern relevant to parallel consumer claims against online marketplaces over similar practices.
The case shows continued SEC pursuit of trading-allocation fraud by investment advisers and could inform parallel private claims by advisory clients who lost money in the disfavored portfolios.
A ruling tightening or loosening the pleading bar for ERISA fund-underperformance claims could directly affect how plaintiff-side firms plead 401(k) and 403(b) excessive-fee and imprudent-investment class actions nationwide.
The ruling will show how Delaware courts police the line between litigation and arbitration in failed strategic-partnership and share-sale transactions, a forum-selection issue relevant to shareholders and investors in similarly structured deals.
The ruling signals how Delaware federal courts police procedural compliance by plaintiff-side counsel in investor litigation, even where they stop short of monetary sanctions.
The case will test whether Delaware courts will look past a deal's licensing-and-hiring label to its economic substance, a question relevant to shareholders in other large AI-sector "reverse acqui-hire" transactions structured to avoid a merger vote.
The first-of-its-kind theory of liability against a third-party franchise seller could inform parallel private claims by franchisees against sales intermediaries in other deceptive-franchise-marketing disputes.
A coordinated warning to major hospital systems over price-quote practices could lay groundwork for future FTC enforcement and bolster related state-law consumer claims over hospital billing transparency.
The recovery is one of the FTC's largest actions against a multi-level marketing company and could inform parallel private claims over deceptive earnings representations in similar MLM structures.
The decision shows how Delaware courts enforce procedural waivers over forum-selection disputes in insurance coverage litigation, an issue relevant when mass tort defendants and their insurers fight over which court decides coverage for underlying injury claims.
The suit adds a state-federal coordinated enforcement action over deceptive online pricing that could lead to consumer redress and may inform related private consumer-protection claims.
The settlement signals continued FTC willingness to pursue price-discrimination claims that can affect small-business purchasers and inform parallel private antitrust or consumer claims.
The new MDLs give plaintiffs centralized venues to pursue claims against two more spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, expanding litigation the firm already tracks alongside the Boston Scientific docket.
The case is one of the larger pending Delaware appraisal fights, a type of litigation plaintiff-side firms watch because it lets dissenting shareholders challenge merger consideration in court.
A pre-trial settlement in the third bellwether removes another test case from the jury pool in an MDL with roughly 4,000 pending claims, a development plaintiff firms track when valuing remaining cases.
The conference marks the formal start of coordinated pretrial proceedings and signals the litigation's transition from early filings toward structured discovery and eventual bellwether scheduling.
The judgment illustrates continued federal enforcement against fraudulent investment schemes, a pattern plaintiff-side firms monitor when evaluating parallel civil claims on behalf of defrauded consumers.
The order moves settlement funds closer to harmed investors, a step plaintiff-side firms track to confirm clients' recoveries from SEC enforcement actions are being paid out.
By rejecting a bright-line stock-price test for materiality, the ruling makes it harder for securities defendants in the Third Circuit to win dismissal simply because a stock price did not move after a corrective disclosure, which could help plaintiffs survive motions to dismiss in future cases.
The decision illustrates how Delaware courts scrutinize post-merger earnout disputes and can impose affirmative monetary liability on a seller found to have manipulated earnout metrics, a precedent relevant to merger and earnout litigation the firm may encounter.
The decision keeps alive a major federal consumer-protection case over ticket-buying practices and fee disclosures, with the case now moving into discovery where more facts about the companies' practices may come to light.
The order substantially widens the group of consumers receiving redress under one of the largest FTC settlements over subscription enrollment and cancellation practices.
If adopted, the proposal would remove the federal route shareholders use to put proposals on company proxies, changing governance activism and related litigation strategy.
A liability ruling for a state attorney general on platform safety misrepresentations adds to the record in parallel youth social media litigation and could shape other state enforcement.
The reported lead plaintiff deadline is September 28, 2026, and it applies only to an investor who wants to ask the court to lead the case; class members do not need to act by that date to remain in the class.
If signed, the bill would bar private suits under section 638.51 over website and app tracking, including pending claims in suits filed on or after January 1, 2025, while claims under sections 631 and 632 would remain available.
The settlement website lists a September 14, 2026 claim deadline; payments to class members with valid claims depend on the claims review and any appeals.
In federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, investors seeking class certification now face a more demanding damages showing.
In federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, Do-Not-Call claims based on texts are now foreclosed, while courts elsewhere may decide differently.
Securities class actions rarely reach a jury, and the ruling shows how a court tests loss causation and class certification after a verdict for investors.
Failure-to-warn claims are central to many pending Roundup cases; how the ruling applies to claims that do not depend on the label will be decided case by case.
Under Case Management Order No. 14, settlement registration runs through November 30, 2026, and the court set an initial bellwether trial for December 7, 2026, subject to its rulings on preemption and expert evidence.