Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is very pleased to announce that partner Vaishali Rao has been named to the 2026 INvolve Heroes Role Model list. She is featured in the Top 100 Executives directory, which honors leaders who are “leading by example and driving change to increase gender diversity in the workplace.”

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner James (Jim) Sandy has been appointed to serve as Chair of the American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Debt Collection Practices and Bankruptcy Subcommittee, for a two-year term effective today. Senior counsel Marisa Roman also serves on the subcommittee leadership team as the Young Lawyers Liaison.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that 80 of its lawyers have been recognized by their peers for inclusion in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

Read Hinshaw partner Vaishali Rao’s ARM Compliance Digest column examining recent joint guidance from 14 state attorneys general affirming that disparate-impact liability remains a viable enforcement theory, even as federal agencies step back.

Read Hinshaw partner Stephanie Mulcahy’s Law360 analysis on the significant developments of three long-standing questions in Illinois mortgage enforcement, all of which have come out in favor of lenders.

Read Hinshaw partner Jennifer Driscoll’s remarks in Corporate Counsel about the antitrust implications of algorithm-driven decision-making in a lawsuit involving TikTok, the NFL, and Fanatics. Discover why this litigation may serve as a test case for future challenges involving AI, competition, and online marketplaces.  

Hinshaw partner D.L. Morriss will present on two panels at the New York Bar Association International Section 2026 Global Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on October 21 – October 23, 2026.

Hinshaw partners Brian McGrath, Lauren Campisi, and Leslie Meredith will speak at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA’s) 2026 Compliance and Risk Management Conference at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, DC, from September 27–29, 2026.

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 partner Justin Penn will present on the panel, “Who Am I Actually Talking To? Third-party Disclosure and Authentication,” on Wednesday, September 23, at 12:00 pm CT.

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.

Stay ahead of a growing circuit split with our latest analysis of a recent Ninth Circuit ruling treating text messages as “calls” under the TCPA—reaching the opposite conclusion of a Seventh Circuit decision.

Read our analysis of California AB 2116’s key commercial financing requirements, unresolved issues, and compliance steps ahead of the 2028 deadlines.

Read our new blog post on the Illinois Supreme Court’s Watkin decision confirming mortgage liens survive foreclosure limitations.

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