Cornelius Smith, the second alleged gunman in the November 2021 killing of Memphis rapper Young Dolph, is expected to enter a plea agreement March 30, the Commercial Appeal reports. Smith previously testified in the trials of Justin Johnson and Hernandez Govan, stating he took part in the shooting. Prior to testifying, Smith had not reached a plea agreement, and his court proceedings have been repeatedly delayed.

Jurors in two of the first U.S. trials in a growing wave of lawsuits against social media companies have found Meta and Google liable for harms to young users, potentially setting up appeals that could reshape the scope of legal protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Reuters reports. In California, a jury on Wednesday awarded $6 million to a young woman who said she developed depression and suicidal thoughts after becoming addicted to Instagram and YouTube, while a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million after finding it misled users about product safety and enabled the sexual exploitation of children. The cases mark a challenge to the law that generally shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, as plaintiffs successfully argued the companies’ platform design — rather than third-party content — caused harm. Both companies have said they plan to appeal.

The TBA’s Mentoring Committee, in partnership with the Young Lawyers Division, is now offering its “Developing Lawyers, Developing Leaders” program on demand. The program provides one general and two dual CLE credits and focuses on mentorship and professional development through the lenses of ethical responsibility and leadership. Featuring sessions led by practitioners and judges, the program offers practical tools for building effective mentoring relationships, enhancing professionalism and supporting long-term career growth. For more information visit the TBA website.

The Tennessee Lawyers’ Association for Women (TLAW) will host its 8th Annual Empowerment Conference on April 17 at Holland & Knight in Nashville. The conference will bring together women from across Tennessee’s legal community for a day of programming focused on professional development, networking and leadership. The agenda includes appearances by current and former Tennessee Supreme Court justices, as well as panels featuring women law firm leaders, a mediator/alternative dispute resolution discussion and a session on mental performance. Access more information and registration link.

Carter County continues to receive state and federal funding to support ongoing recovery efforts following Hurricane Helene, the Elizabethton Star reports. The county expects to receive $675,100 this week from the State Helene Interest Payment Fund, part of a grant program designed to offset interest costs on bonds issued for road and bridge repairs. The county previously received $398,557 to cover administrative costs related to the bond. Last week, the county also received its third reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, bringing total FEMA reimbursements to $1,726,286. Officials said the funds have primarily supported engineering work and temporary bridge installations in the Poga community. As recovery efforts continue, future reimbursement requests are expected to focus more on permanent road repairs.

The TBA’s Legislative Updates podcast returned this week, featuring attorney and TBA lobbyist Berkley Schwarz of Pier Strategies LLC, along with attorneys and TBA lobbyists Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin of Adams & Reese, and Adams & Reese intern Aydan Hawk. The group recapped the TBA’s recent Day on the Hill and reviewed several key pieces of legislation, including bills on extrajudicial adoptions HB1263/SB1238; real estate HB569/SB394, HB1970/SB1985 and HB1762/SB1707; adoption SB2165/HB2350; probate SB2184/HB2451 and family law SB2324/HB2429. Tune in on the TBA website or through this link. Attorneys interested in supporting the TBA’s lobbying efforts can contribute to LAWPAC.

The Tennessee Supreme Court on March 25 suspended 20 attorneys for failure to pay the annual registration fee, nine of whom also failed to file proof that client funds are held in an IOLTA-compliant account. View the fee suspension order and IOLTA suspension order. Lawyers reinstated in the last month include three who were suspended in 2025. TBA has administrative suspensions dating back to 2005. Be sure to check the Board of Professional Responsibility's website for the most up to date information on lawyers' licenses.

Campbell County lawyer J. Stephen Hurst was censured by the Tennessee Supreme Court on March 25 for violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, 3.3 and 8.4(d) while representing a client in a property boundary action. During the representation, the court found that Hurst improperly negotiated and settled the pending action without his client’s knowledge or authorization and failed to inform the court that his client had not approved the settlement.

In today's immigration climate, keeping up with hot topics and policy changes is more important than ever. TBA's 2026 Immigration Law Forum, to be held in-person in Nashville on May 15, will cover everything immigration attorneys in Tennessee need to know. State Rep. Yusuf Hakeem, D-Chattanooga, will discuss state legislation again this year. Other topics will include practice management tips, an ethical discussion with the Board of Professional Responsibility about fee changes, and a session with Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition leadership on using court petitions for immigration advocacy.

Make plans to attend now!

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether shareholders of a corporation may bring claims directly on their own behalf, or whether certain claims must be brought as derivative actions on behalf of the corporation. Specifically, the court addressed the nature of shareholder standing in the context of both direct actions and derivative actions, based on the type of damages at issue in the lawsuit.

In the case of Houghton, et al. v. Malibu Boats LLC, No. E2023-00324-SC-R11-CV, the two plaintiffs were the sole shareholders of a Tennessee corporation that operated a dealership on property owned by the corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s tortious actions caused the dealership to go out of business, as well as the foreclosure of the real property owned by the corporation. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and promissory fraud, seeking damages to corporate property and diminution in the value of their stock.

A jury awarded plaintiffs compensation for “loss of equity” in the buildings used to run the business. At a post-trial motion, the defendant, for the first time in the proceedings, orally raised an issue purporting to implicate subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert a cause of action for damage to property that was owned by the corporation, not by the plaintiffs personally. The Tennessee Supreme Court analyzed whether the standing issues in the case were jurisdictional or prudential. The court concluded that shareholder standing limitations are prudential, not jurisdictional, and must be raised in a timely manner; otherwise, they are subject to forfeiture. Because the defendant did not raise the defense in a timely manner, it was waived.

On the substantive issue of whether or not the claims in the case belonged to the corporation and should have been brought derivatively on behalf of the corporation, or whether the plaintiffs had a cause of action on their own behalf, the Tennessee Supreme Court noted the general proposition that only a corporation may sue for injuries to corporate property. In the context of the fact that the corporation, not the plaintiffs, owned the real property at issue, the court examined the nature of direct shareholder injuries. The court noted that shareholders may bring individual actions for direct injuries to their legal rights as stockholders, even if the corporation also has a claim; however, they must comply with the procedural requirements of derivative actions if asserting corporate claims. However, given the axiomatic principle that a corporation and its shareholders are distinct parties, the nature of a shareholder’s claim must be analyzed to determine whether the shareholder has the requisite standing to bring a claim.

The court, noting the plaintiffs’ stock ownership in the corporation “clearly represented a cognizable private property right” which was allegedly damaged by the defendant’s tortious conduct, determined that the individual shareholders had constitutional standing. Next, in examining whether the plaintiffs had statutory standing, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs’ course of action in pursuing their own personal claims was “permitted even if the corporation also may have a cause of action growing out of the same wrong.” However, the court, as well as even the plaintiffs, seemed to give some credence to the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs did not have shareholder standing because it was the corporation “that suffered the alleged harm and, thus, the [p]laintiffs were not directly injured by the loss of equity” in the property owned by the corporation. However, the defendant’s apparent victory on this singular point was hollow, as this distinction affects the merits, not “the authority of the court to adjudicate the dispute,” and must be timely raised.

While the doctrine of standing and its various corporate-related subdoctrines recently analyzed by the Tennessee Supreme Court may be ponderous to sort through at the outset of litigation, this case lays out a roadmap for doing so. This recent case also demonstrates the downside of not making such a determination early in the case (or at least at some point before a fact finder renders a decision) and raising the issue accordingly.

Justin Joy is a shareholder in the Memphis office of Lewis Thomason and leads the firm’s cybersecurity practice group. He provides counsel to clients in a variety of industries in the area of information privacy and cybersecurity including incident investigation and breach response management, regulatory compliance, privacy and security policy review and drafting, and cyber risk management. Joy is a Certified Information Privacy Professional/US (CIPP/US) and a Certified Information Privacy Technologist (CIPT) through the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He speaks frequently to various groups and organizations on the topic of information privacy and cybersecurity. Joy also regularly represents businesses and individuals in a variety of litigation matters including professional liability claims, insurance coverage disputes, business torts and commercial disputes. He also frequently advises business clients regarding a range of governance, operational and strategic matters. He is a 2001 graduate of Wake Forest University and holds a law and MBA degree from the University of Memphis.