Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Fernando C. Rivera-Maissonet has been reappointed as the Co-Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA)’s Business Law Section for the 2025–2026 term.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP today announced that the firm has continued the strategic expansion of its nationally recognized Consumer Financial Services Practice Group with the addition of partners Leslie Meredith in Washington, D.C., and Joseph (Joe) Sanders in Chicago.

Read how Hinshaw partner J. Logan Rappaport and our client’s in-house counsel Heather Mooneyham recently secured a significant summary judgment in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York for the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund.

Read Akeela White’s analysis of a debt collector’s petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify three Fair Debt Collection Practices Act questions.

Read Hinshaw partner Brian McGrath’s analysis in recent National Mortgage News coverage about the New York Court of Appeals’ consideration of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) and its retroactive application to legacy loans.

Read a Law360 “Expert Analysis” article by Hinshaw colleagues Megan Ryan and Sam Bodurtha, which analyzes Massachusetts’ new consumer protection regulations targeting “junk fees” and deceptive pricing practices.

Partners Dustin Alonzo and Leslie Meredith will serve as panelists on November 20, 2025, at the Fall Conference of Consumer Finance Law (CCFL) in Fort Worth, Texas.

Hinshaw partners Laura Cannon and Tessa Vorhaben will both present separate CLE panels at the Big Easy Bootcamp for Young Lawyers, hosted by the New Orleans Bar Association (NOBA) on October 29, 2025, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Hinshaw partners Vaishali Rao, Akeela White, and Joe Sanders will lead a panel on "Regulatory Landscape from a State Perspective" at the Chicagoland Compliance Association's (CCA) Annual Conference on October 16, 2025, in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Chicago-based partner Vaishali Rao will co-present an AccountsRecovery.net webinar titled "Addressing and Understanding the Increase in CFPB Consumer Complaints," on October 14, 2025.

Hinshaw partner Justin Penn will co-present an AccountsRecovery.net webinar titled “Dealing with Sovereign Citizen Situations” on September 12, 2025.

Hinshaw partner Vaishali Rao is scheduled to co-present a webinar titled "Preparing for State Investigations and Examinations" on August 8, 2025.

Read our recap of the New York Court of Appeals’ arguments over FAPA retroactivity and what to watch for with the court’s upcoming decision that could reshape foreclosure timelines.

Discover how New York's new 90-day pre-foreclosure notice requirement impacts condo boards and HOAs, including essential details on compliance and changes to foreclosure procedures.

Read our latest blog post about Massachusetts’ new “junk fees” and deceptive pricing regulations to learn what your business must do to avoid violations and ensure compliance.

Read part one, "A Bronx Tale: A New York State Trial Judge Calls Out New York State's Long-Standing Heightened Standard of Proving the Making of an Agreement to Arbitrate," about the trial court's decision in Wu v. Uber Tech., Inc.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently signed off on anti-deed theft legislation, as outlined in Senate bill 2023-S.6577 with companion Assembly bill 2023-A.6656.[1] The Governor signed the new legislation on November 14, 2023, and it goes into effect 30 days later, on December 14, 2023. (See 2023-A.6656 section 8.)

President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP Act) on March 11, 2021. The $1.9 trillion economic recovery package revised the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Shuttered Venue Operator Grant Program (SVOG), and also created the Restaurant Revitalization Grant Program (RRG Program).

Explore compliance implications of California’s finalized CCPA rules and Colorado’s new regulations, including insurance privacy requirements, ADMT notices, risk assessments, and phased cyber audits.

Explore key compliance strategies from Hinshaw partner Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and industry experts on AI-driven cyber risks and regulations, as covered in our alert with takeaways from the Q3 2025 FinCyber Femmes Meeting.

Understand essential compliance requirements and steps for your business to prepare for the 2025 New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) cybersecurity regulations.

Illinois Supreme Court Finds That TCPA Is a Remedial and Not Punitive StatuteIn Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay, --- N.E.2d ---, 2013 WL 2253203 (Ill. May 23, 2013), the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) is a remedial and not a punitive statute, and thus liquidated damages of $500 per violation do not constitute uninsurable punitive damages.In June 2009, plaintiff fax recipient brought a class action against defendant insured in the Circuit Court of Madison County, alleging violations of the TCPA. The fax recipient and the other plaintiffs sought the TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation and injunctive relief. The insured tendered its defense to its insurer, which had issued to the insured a commercial general liability insurance policy and a primary business owners’ liability insurance policy.In July 2009, the underlying action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and on September 18, 2010, the district court entered a final order approving the class certification and settlement. The judgment against the insured was for $1,737,500, plus costs. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the fax recipient would seek satisfaction of the judgment only from the insurance policies of the insured; the insured assigned to the fax recipient all of its claims against, and rights to payment from, the insurer. In July 2010, the insurer filed a complaint and alleged, in relevant part, that TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation constitute punitive damages, which “are not insurable as a matter of Illinois law and public policy.” Finding that the insured was not covered, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court’s finding that TCPA-prescribed damages of $500 per violation constitute punitive damages, which “are not insurable as a matter of Illinois law and public policy and are not recoverable from [the insurer].” The Court explained: “Whether we view the $500 statutory award as a liquidated sum for actual harm, or as an incentive for aggrieved parties to enforce the statute, or both, the $500 fixed amount clearly serves more than purely punitive or deterrent goals.”Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay, --- N.E.2d ----, 2013 WL 2253203 (Ill. May 23, 2013)Georgia Supreme Court Holds That Assignee of Security Deed Can Conduct Nonjudicial Foreclosure Sale Without Holding or Owning the Underlying Promissory NoteThe Supreme Court of Georgia decided questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia regarding state nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. In the district court, the borrowers challenged, inter alia, the authority of the holder of the security deed to exercise the power of sale in that deed without also holding the promissory note. The Court held that state law does not require a party seeking to exercise a power of sale in a deed securing debt to also hold the promissory note evidencing the underlying debt. The Court noted that no such requisite existed in the statute, and highlighted the legislature’s refusal to specifically define the term “secured creditor.” In further support of its holding, the Court highlighted the long-standing practice surrounding nonjudicial foreclosures that recognizes the ability of a deed holder to exercise its rights under the deed, apart from the note. In addition, the Court gleaned no evidence from which to conclude that the legislature intended to make substantive changes to this law through subsequent amendments. The Court also rejected the borrowers’ argument that the secured deed was a negotiable instrument governed by Article 3 of Georgia’s Uniform Commercial Code. It further held that the statute’s notice provision did not require that the secured creditor be identified in the notice of default to the debtor unless the secured creditor is the individual or entity with full authority to negotiate and modify the terms of the mortgage. Thus, identifying only a loan servicer in a foreclosure notice meets the statutory requirement as long as the servicer has authority to modify the terms of the loan and deed.You v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., --- S.E.2d ---, 2013 WL 2152562 (Ga. May 20, 2013)Debtor’s Writ of Garnishment Is Quashed After He Refuses to Provide Tax Info and Tries to Collect Judgment from Debt Collector