Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is delighted to announce that Ali Degan has been elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation (ABF).

Formerly with Polsinelli, a six-attorney group led by partner Brendan I. Herbert in Miami and partner Marc D. Cabrera in Dallas is joining Hinshaw’s financial services group. Joining as senior counsel are Jonathan L. Blackmore in Miami, Elizabeth F. Hayes and Justin K. Sauls in Dallas, and Michael C. Hughes in New York.

Tom Kuzmanovic, partner in charge of the Milwaukee office, was selected by BizTimes Milwaukee for its 2026 Notable Leaders in Law list.

Hinshaw partners Scott Seaman, Philip Kujawa, and William (Bill) Cook VI have co-authored six of the seven chapters in the newly released 2026 edition of the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education (IICLE) “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” handbook.

Read Hinshaw general counsel Steve Puiszis's insights in a recent Mealey's report on how generative AI is impacting attorney-client privilege and work product protections, and the practical steps firms should take to mitigate risk.

Listen to Hinshaw partner Ambrose McCall’s discussion on the Greg and Dan Show about two significant rulings finding YouTube and Meta liable for the alleged addictive influence of their content on users.

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.

Craig Liljestrand will present at the IADC annual meeting in a panel session titled "PFAS Update – Forever Litigation Over the Forever Chemical" on July 9, 2025, in Quebec, Canada.

Hinshaw is proud to sponsor the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP) New York Conference on June 25, 2025.

Hinshaw partner Yvonne Ocrant’s course, "Equine Activity Liability: Legal Exposure and Contract Solutions," is now available for on demand viewing on Lawline.

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 attorney and co-chair of the American Bar Association's (ABA) LGBT Law & Litigator Committee, Ali Degan, will moderate the CLE webinar, "LGBTQ+ Litigation Trends and Legal Realities Before the Supreme Court: What Lawyers Need to Know," on February 20, 2026.

Read key takeaways from the Hinshaw-sponsored 2026 Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference, where our attorneys were on site, presenting and engaging with industry leaders.

The US Supreme Court has issued its ruling in a case that considered whether a federal court that had sent a dispute to arbitration retains jurisdiction to vacate or confirm a subsequent arbitration award.

Read how Tennessee has reached the first settlement in the multistate attorney general action against Mariner Finance, imposing conduct requirements on add-on product sales and lending.

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 an in-house compliance guide for responding to Executive Order (EO) 14209, which paused all future investigations and enforcement actions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for at least 180 days.

With a presidential election year on the horizon, a split Congress, and an aviation industry encumbered by labor shortages and safety issues, Michael Whitaker, the newly appointed Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), enters the agency’s cockpit during bureaucratic turbulence.[1] 

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic—alone or coupled with government orders limiting activities—has impacted the ability of many businesses to maintain operations and to fulfill contractual obligations. Over the past few days, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and the governors of several States—including New York, California, and Illinois—have declared states of emergency and/or imposed unprecedented travel, movement, and gathering restrictions, and limited or prohibited for a period of time various activities.

Supreme Court Ruling May Allow “Picking Off” Named Plaintiffs in Class ActionsPlaintiff employee filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and “other employees similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). After she ignored petitioners’ offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, the district court concluded that her suit was moot and dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because no other individuals had joined her suit and the Rule 68 offer fully satisfied her claim.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the employee’s individual claim was moot but her collective action was not. The court explained that allowing defendants to “pick off” named plaintiffs before certification with calculated Rule 68 offers would frustrate the goals of collective actions. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, held that because the employee had no personal interest in representing the putative unnamed claimants, her suit was appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court noted that the federal appeals courts are split on whether an offer of settlement of a federal lawsuit is enough to make it moot, but stated that it would not resolve that dispute because the mootness issue “is not properly before us” because the employee had waived the mootness issue.

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.

D.C. Circuit Decision Invalidating Appointment of NLRB Members Calls Into Question Appointment of CFPB’s Director