Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that senior counsel Nicholas Ponzo has been appointed to serve on the City of Stamford’s Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (HPAC).

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Cathy Mulrow-Peattie was selected by Crain’s New York Business for its 2026 Notable Women in Law.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Hinshaw partners James (Jim) Sandy and Scott Seaman have been ranked as Top Authors in the 2026 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards.

Read Hinshaw partner David Schultz’s three key takeaways from a Virginia district court's decision denying a motion to dismiss in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case involving a mixed-credit file.

Read Hinshaw partner Cathy Mulrow-Peattie’s insights on why disaster recovery and cyber defense planning are critical following the recent Iranian cyberattack against Stryker.

Read a Law360 “Expert Analysis” by Hinshaw partner John Kimble examining the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) regulatory and enforcement priorities for 2026.

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 proudly serves as a Diamond Sponsor of the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference in Miami from May 4 to 7, 2026.

Join industry-leading automotive finance attorneys in Chicago on April 23, 2026, for a day-long complimentary seminar on the latest federal and state developments impacting consumer and commercial lending within the industry.

Hinshaw partner Vaishali Rao will present at the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI) webinar, “State Oversight in an Era of Federal Deregulation,” on April 28 from 9:00 to 10:00 am PDT.

Hinshaw partner Jim Sandy will be a faculty member in a National Business Institute (NBI) CLE webinar titled "Advanced FDCPA Compliance Challenges and Violations," on April 1, 2026.

Hinshaw partner Colin Winkler will co-present an AccountsRecovery.net webinar, "Breaking Down the NYC Proposed Debt Collection Rule," on March 3, 2026, at 3 pm Eastern.

Our new blog post examines the US Supreme Court’s recent oral argument on whether district courts can confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the FAA after compelling arbitration.

Read how Governor Hochul has signed into law a chapter amendment to the New York FAIR Business Practices Act, implementing changes to the attorney general’s expanded enforcement authority.

Read our blog post regarding the Office of the Comptroller Currency’s (OCC) amicus brief urging the Seventh Circuit to halt the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA) before it takes effect on July 1, 2026.

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