A significant win by Hinshaw client Merchants Credit Guide Co. at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was named one of the "Top Ten Most Influential Cases" for the Accounts Receivable Management industry in 2020 by Collector Magazine. The putative class action case involved a decisive victory on an FDCPA claim that centered on a credit reporting method that is widely used in the credit and collections industry. David Schultz, Jennifer Weller, and Stephen Swofford represented Merchants Credit on the successful dismissal of this case at the district court level and on appeal.

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently handed Hinshaw client Merchants Credit Guide Co. a decisive victory on an FDCPA claim that centered on a credit reporting method that is widely used in the credit and collections industry. David Schultz, Jennifer Weller, and Steve Swofford represented Merchants Credit Guide Co. on the successful dismissal of this case at the district court level and on appeal.

A win by Hinshaw client Portfolio Recovery Associates at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was named third in a list of the "Top Ten Most Influential Cases" for the accounts receivable management industry in 2019 by Collector Magazine. In the case, Hinshaw secured recovery of legal costs and a major reduction in plaintiff's requested attorneys' fees in a case involving FDCPA and FCRA claims. Hinshaw's David Schultz represented PRA at trial and on appeal, with assistance from Raven Burke Mackey, Jennifer Weller, and Steve Swofford.

A group of lawyers from Hinshaw's Lawyers for the Profession® practice group contributed six chapters to the latest edition of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education's (IICLE) Attorneys' Legal Liability handbook. The handbook—of which Hinshaw's Tom McGarry was the General Editor—addresses the professional responsibilities of Illinois attorneys. It includes in-depth discussions of topics such as attorney liability, malpractice, and conflicts of interests, and also offers best-practice guidance.

Thomas P. McGarry and Jennifer W. Weller, Chicago-based partners in Hinshaw's Lawyers Professional Liability and Consumer & Class Action Litigation Groups co-authored " The Limitation of Liability Through Business Forms," which appears as Chapter 15 in "Attorneys' Legal Liability 2012 Edition" (2012).

In Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, a debtor sued for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Within a month of filing suit, the creditor invoked Rule 68 in making a formal offer to settle, and subsequently made two additional Rule 68 offers of judgment. The debtor never responded to these settlement offers, and later rejected a final offer to settle all claims, costs and attorneys' fees for $25,000. At trial, the debtor prevailed on both of his claims, but because the jury determined he had sustained no actual damages, his total recovery was limited to $1,000 in statutory damages.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Claim Based on Attorney's Failure to Know Truth of Information in Sworn Affidavit

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Rescission of Mortgage under TILA Requires Mere Written Notice

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Debt Collector Can Recover Costs Without Showing of Bad Faith and Harassment in FDCPA ActionOn February 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of respondent debt collector in Marx vs. General Revenue Corporation, holding that the prevailing party in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) action may be awarded costs where the lawsuit was not brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. Petitioner consumer had defaulted on a student loan, for which the creditor authorized the debt collector to collect. The consumer filed an FDCPA action against the debt collector, alleging that the collector harassed her and falsely threatened her with garnishment. After a one-day trial, the consumer did not prove any violation, and the district court awarded the debt collector costs for witness fees, witness travel expenses, and deposition transcript fees. The consumer appealed the district court’s decision awarding costs. Specifically, she argued that the court’s discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) was displaced by 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) of the FDCPA, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs.”Despite the filing of an amicus brief by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in support of the consumer’s position, the Supreme Court held that costs are allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). The Court concluded that the language and context of 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3) demonstrate that it is not contrary to Rule 54(d)(1).For more information, please contact Barbara Fernandez or your regular Hinshaw attorney.