Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Jennifer Driscoll has been reappointed as the ABA Antitrust Law Section Co-Chair of Comments for the 2026-2027 term.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that partner Joshua (Josh) Vincent has been selected as the 2026 Edward J. Lewis II Pro Bono Service Award recipient, part of the 2026 Chicago Bar Association (CBA) and Chicago Bar Foundation (CBF) Pro Bono and Public Service Awards.

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is pleased to announce that Diana L. Winfrey has joined the firm’s global insurance industry group as a partner in the Los Angeles office.

Read Hinshaw partner Jennifer Driscoll’s analysis in Global Competition Review on the significant antitrust challenge to Paramount’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros.

Read Hinshaw partner Jennifer Driscoll’s insights via Global Competition Review discussing the DOJ’s price-fixing charges against the world’s largest shipping container manufacturers—and the wave of private litigation expected to follow.

Listen to Hinshaw partner Scott Seaman on the Cornered Out of Court podcast from IICLE, where he discusses the complexities of wrongful death and survival actions in Illinois, including key distinctions between the two claims and the impact of the 2023 amendment permitting punitive damages.

Hinshaw is proud to sponsor the 2026 International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP) New York Conference on June 24, 2026.

Hinshaw senior counsel Eugene Brown Jr. was part of the faculty at the 7th American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) Trial Advocacy Program held on May 29-31 in San Francisco, California.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

Read our latest alert on the US Supreme Court's landmark ruling eliminating FAAAA preemption for negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers, and discover practical steps to mitigate exposure in this new litigation landscape.

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.

Read our latest insurance alert outlining New York’s revised motor vehicle tort and no-fault framework and the key implications for claims strategy, defense costs, and litigation planning.

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