intend for their privilege argument, addressed above in the discussion of Plaintiffs’ inducement-of-breach claim, to apply to the tortious-interference claim as well. Defendants have not, however, cited to any Tennessee case law supporting the application of the parent-subsidiary privilege in the tortious-interference context as opposed to the inducement-of-breach context. Moreover, because the “improper means or motive” element of a tortious-interference claim itself requires the same type of conduct that would be sufficient to nullify the privilege in the inducement context, the Court finds it unnecessary to consider the question of whether Tennessee courts would apply the privilege for purposes of a tortious interference claim. See Waste Conversion Systems, 33 S.W.3d at 784
recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation recognizing tort of wrongful discharge holding that im proper means may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation or a recognized rule of common law or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession holding that the parentsubsidiary privilege could be lost by using wrongful means including fraud misrepresentation threats violence defamation trespass restraint of trade intimidation molestation or any other wrongful act recognized by statute or common law holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute