Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is excited to announce that Brian McGrath, partner and co-chair of the firm’s Consumer Financial Services group, has been selected by Crain’s New York Business as a 2026 Notable Leader in Accounting, Consulting & Law.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Charles Townsend, partner-in-charge of the Dallas office, has been named a finalist in the Best Mentor category of the 2026 Texas Legal Awards, presented by American Law Media (ALM).

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that James (Jim) Sandy, partner-in-charge of the firm’s Cleveland office, has been selected by Crain’s Cleveland Business as a 2026 Notable Leader in Accounting, Consulting & Law.

Read two Hinshaw-authored articles—“Fair Access and Debanking: Recent Developments and Unanswered Questions” and “State Survey of Coerced Debt Laws”—in the latest issue of the CCFL Quarterly Report.

Read about the significance of the CFPB’s now-vacated rule that would have slashed late fees from $30 to $8 for large credit card issuers.

Read about the significance of New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) for mortgage lenders and loan servicers, as Hinshaw partner Brian McGrath discusses in a recent Newsday article.

Hinshaw partner Ed Lenci will present on the panel “Common Law, Common Ground: Irish Law as the Gateway to Europe” at the Ireland For Law NYC Business Mission event.

Hinshaw attorneys Alyssa Szymczyk and Leslie Meredith will present at the 2026 Spring Conference on Consumer Finance Law (CCFL), taking place May 28 and 29 at Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Hinshaw is a Silver Sponsor of the New York City Bar's Consumer Financial Law Conference on May 8, 2026. This event connects academics, judges, and industry stakeholders to discuss consumer finance and economic justice. Continuing legal education credit will be available.

Hinshaw partner Justin Penn will present at an Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) Huddle, “Signed, Sealed … Coerced? Understanding Coerced Debt,” on June 17.

John Ryan discusses AI voice bots in collections, highlighting compliance requirements, legal risks, and regulatory considerations for AI-driven consumer calls.

Hinshaw partner Akeela White will present during the Accounts Recovery webinar, “Breaking Down the Most Common FCRA Disputes You're Seeing Right Now — and What to Do With Them,” on June 5 at 12:00 PM CST.

Learn about the Seventh Circuit’s significant ruling holding that text messages are not considered “calls” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Learn how Illinois mortgage lenders are impacted by three recent enforcement developments in the state that could reshape how and when you can enforce notes and mortgages.

Learn key takeaways from a recent district court ruling that clarified the distinction between clickwrap and browsewrap agreements, finding that one, but not the other, manifested an intent to arbitrate disputes. 

In this November edition of Hinshaw’s Privacy, Cyber and AI Decoded, in celebration of the US Thanksgiving holiday, we are recommending that our readers Keep Calm as they are faced with a new surge of legal requirements, regulations, and enforcement actions, and Gobble On. 

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.

The US Supreme Court issued a decision that President Trump's 2025 IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional and unlawful, holding that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs. 

Learn how the New York AVOID Act significantly changes third-party practice and the key compliance steps to prepare for the law taking effect on April 19, 2026.

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.

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