Ashland City’s Cheatham Middle School got a new mascot. Previously known at the “Bearcats,” the Middle Tennessee school changed mascots because of a cease-and-desist letter it received from the University of Cincinnati. Andrew Coffman explains why the change was necessary and the ins and outs of trademark and copyright law.

The TBA Law Office Technology & Management Section is presenting four webcasts in July. On July 8, catch “60 Legal Tech Tips, Tricks, Gadgets and Websites in 60 Minutes, which will focus on the latest developments in legal technology. On July 9, tune in for “AI in Law: Use Cases,” which will explore 30 impactful use cases of generative AI for lawyers, including in the areas of legal research, document drafting and practice management. On July 10, join colleagues for “The Evolving Ethics of Law Firm Cybersecurity: Practical and Budget-Friendly Tips.” This program will focus on affordable cybersecurity measures that should be considered to protect confidential data. And on July 11, wrap up with “Our Era of AI: Responsible AI & Microsoft Copilot,” which will look at how Microsoft embraces Responsible AI in its development of AI solutions and how the company’s legal department uses Copilot to achieve more.

In this edition of Voices of the YLD, Brian Mounce interviews Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. Skrmetti offers the following advice for young lawyers: find an area of law you love, find some mentors and keep at it; things will be here long after we are gone, so have a good work life balance, too. Mounce is an attorney at Burch, Porter & Johnson. He received his law degree from Tulane University and Master of Science degree from the London School of Economics. Previously he served as an assistant federal defender and an assistant solicitor general in the Tennessee Attorney General's Office. Mounce is TBA YLD's Publications Committee chair. Contact him if you are interested in submitting a piece for Voices of the YLD.

As a first-year associate in a debt finance practice, one of the first major documents I encountered was the credit agreement. While dense and highly technical at first glance, this document is central to any lending relationship and worth understanding, even for lawyers outside of the finance world. It governs the legal and financial relationship between a borrower and its lender and sets the tone for the entire financing deal.

At its core, a credit agreement is a contract between a borrower and a lender (or group of lenders) that outlines the terms and conditions by which the borrower can access funds. It is typically drafted by lender’s counsel and negotiated with borrower’s counsel, and governs the rights, responsibilities and obligations of all parties involved. A credit agreement can range from 50 to over 150 pages and often includes schedules, exhibits and ancillary documents like security agreements and guarantees. Despite the complexity, most credit agreements follow a relatively standard structure, including definitions, loan terms, conditions precedent, representations and warranties, covenants, events of default, remedies and miscellaneous provisions.

One of the first things I learned about the credit agreement was just how powerful the definitions section is. Practically every material business or legal term is defined here, and those definitions can greatly change how the agreement operates. Take EBITDA for example – what may seem like a straightforward accounting concept could be negotiated to include various add-backs and exclusions that affect how the financial covenants are calculated, and, in turn, whether a borrower is in default. Further, concepts like “Permitted Liens” and “Change of Control” should be carefully tailored to the borrower’s structure and business practices to avoid default later down the line.

Another key component of the credit agreement is the covenants. Covenants are one of the most negotiated parts of a credit agreement. They list what the borrower must do (affirmative), must not do (negative) or must maintain (financial) throughout the life of the loan. Affirmative covenants typically include requirements to deliver financial statements, maintain insurance, comply with various laws and maintain corporate existence. Conversely, negative covenants can restrict the borrower from incurring additional debt, granting additional liens on the pledged collateral (excluding Permitted Liens), or transferring assets, among other things. Finally, financial covenants are key performance benchmarks that the borrower must meet on an ongoing basis. They can include concepts like minimum liquidity, coverage ratios and leverage ratios, and are commonly tested on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis. Ultimately, the covenants are there to give the lender control or visibility into the borrower’s financial health and risk. Flexibility can be negotiated through baskets, thresholds or exceptions. For junior associates, understanding how these covenants interact, especially with the defined terms and financial schedules, is an important early skill.

Further, every credit agreement includes a section detailing what happens when the borrower is in breach of the agreement — called “Events of Default.” Default may be triggered by things like failure to pay principal or interest, breach of a covenant, misrepresentation, insolvency or other bankruptcy events, cross-defaults of other key agreements, or change of control. The credit agreement provides for various lender remedies, allowing the lender to accelerate payments, charge default interest or exercise its rights under the collateral documents in the event of a default. Cure periods, notice requirements and materiality qualifiers are critical to this section — borrowers want time and flexibility, whereas lenders want clarity and speed.

Credit agreements appear across the business law landscape — in M&A deals, real estate closings, restructurings and even in-house legal departments assessing a company’s financial health. For junior associates, developing a working familiarity with these documents early on is a valuable differentiator. It enables you to spot issues that may impact your client’s broader strategy, understand how lender rights can influence corporate actions and collaborate more effectively with finance counsel. While credit agreements can be dense and highly technical, they are also logical and structured, making them excellent training grounds for junior lawyers. You don’t need to master every provision at once, but by focusing on the big picture and staying curious about the details, you’ll build fluency over time. With each deal, you’ll become more comfortable with the language, better at identifying negotiation leverage and increasingly confident in your ability to add value to both your team and your clients.

Adriana Snedaker is an associate in the Bass, Berry & Sims PLC debt finance practice, representing borrowers and lenders in financing transactions, including acquisition and construction loans, term loan facilities, asset-based secured financings and revolving credit facilities. Snedaker also collaborates with the firm’s Corporate & Securities Practice Group on corporate transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions, for public and private companies, which involve financing issues.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. The State of Michigan collects blood samples from newborn babies and screens them for diseases as part of its newborn screening program. This program is not unique. Every state has one, and more than 98% of children born in the United States are tested at birth. These programs are estimated to have saved thousands of infant lives across the country. However laudable any government program may be, it must withstand the rigors of constitutional scrutiny. Plaintiffs—four parents and their nine children who were born in Michigan and had their heels pricked and blood drawn as part of the newborn screening program—contend that Michigan’s scheme entails coercive, non-consensual taking and keeping of baby blood for the state’s profit, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court initially dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, but a prior panel of our court reversed and remanded several claims. Kanuszewski v. Mich. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 927 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2019) (Kanuszewski I). Ultimately, the district court granted judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on nearly all their remaining claims and ordered defendants to return or destroy plaintiffs’ stored blood spots and data collected under the program. Doing so was erroneous because the district court over-extended our prior opinion’s holdings and failed to apply the law to the facts as developed during discovery. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on all Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims and vacate the injunction requiring defendants to destroy the stored data.

Defendant, Danny Young, appeals the judgment of the Shelby County Criminal Court revoking his probation and ordering the execution of his original sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to place on the record its reasons for revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his original sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

A Madison County jury convicted Defendant, Demarqushon Marquis Hinton, of evading arrest in a motor vehicle with risk of death or injury, two counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of employing a firearm during the commission of or attempt to commit a dangerous felony, theft of a firearm valued at less than $2,500, reckless driving, failure to obey a traffic control device, and failure to stop at a stop sign. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-four years to be served in confinement. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his attempted second degree murder and firearm convictions, and he argues that his sentence is excessive. Upon review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

The Petitioner, Clay Stuart Gregory, was convicted of aggravated robbery, first-degree felony murder, and premeditated first-degree murder, for which he received an effective sentence of life in prison. State v. Gregory, No. M2012-00546-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 6187919, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 25, 2013), perm app. denied (Tenn. May 14, 2014). The Petitioner subsequently filed a petition seeking post-conviction relief, which was denied. In this appeal, the Petitioner argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on the following nine grounds: (1) trial counsel’s failure to lodge a pretrial objection to a note found in the Petitioner’s truck and the failure of the post-conviction court to permit juror testimony under Rule 606(b) regarding the impact of the same; (2) trial counsel’s failure to object during the State’s closing argument; (3) trial counsel’s failure to prepare for trial; (4) trial counsel’s failure to investigate, call, or cross-examine key witnesses; (5) trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction pursuant to State v. Ferguson, 2 S.W.3d 912 (Tenn. 1999); (6) trial counsel’s failure to present a shooting incident reconstruction and a firearms expert; (7) trial counsel’s failure to ensure the Petitioner could hear during trial; (8) trial counsel’s failure to secure the presence of the Petitioner and Jacqueline Peek for a court ordered deposition; and (9) trial counsel providing the jury with a report that contained inflammatory information about the Petitioner. The Petitioner also argues that trial counsel violated an ethical duty of loyalty by simultaneously representing the Petitioner and two potential defense witnesses. Finally, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief based on the cumulative error doctrine.1 Upon review, we affirm.

Petitioner, Shamika Fifer, was indicted on charges of first degree murder (Count 1), attempted first degree murder (Count 2), and employing a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 3). At trial, a Shelby County jury convicted her of Count 2 but could not reach a verdict as to Counts 1 and 3. During a subsequent hearing, Petitioner pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of second degree murder in Count 1 and Count 3 was dismissed by the State. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of twenty-one years’ confinement. Petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the post- conviction court denied following a hearing. On appeal, Petitioner maintains that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and that trial counsel was ineffective. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Two federal bills aim to increase transparency at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), including one that would mandate at least four public board meetings per year and another that would require disclosure of employee salaries exceeding $123,041, the Nashville Post reports. The TVA Transparency Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett, Republican of Knox County, and co-sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen, a Memphis Democrat, passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 9 and now is under review by the U.S. Senate. Burchett and Cohen’s separate salary disclosure bill — the Tennessee Valley Authority Salary Transparency Act — passed the House in January. It has been introduced in the Senate by Tennessee Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty. TVA officials say they already comply with existing transparency laws and hold quarterly public meetings. TVA is federally owned and the largest public power supplier in the U.S., providing electricity to more than 10 million people.