APRIL 2026 | 15 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. Jacob L. Fanning is an associate in the Oklahoma City law firm of Hartzog Conger Cason LLP. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in 2018 from OSU and a J.D. in 2021 from the OCU School of Law. ENDNOTES 1. SB 632, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2025). 2. Id. 3. See Lee Applebaum, Mitchell Bach, Eric Milby and Richard L. Renck, “Through the Decades: The Development of Business Courts in the United States of America,” 75 The Bus. Lawyer 2053, 2054 (2020) (“Applebaum, et al.”); Mitchell L. Bach and Lee Applebaum, “A History of Business Courts and Jurisdiction of Business Courts in the Last Decade,” 60 The Bus. Lawyer, 147, 223-226 (2004). 4. Applebaum, et al., 2055. 5. Id. 6. Id. at 2055. These types of cases range from business governance disputes and shareholder derivative actions to cases involving antitrust, trade secrets and unfair competition. 7. Id. 8. Id. at 2055, 2026. 9. Id. at 2057, 2058. 10. See Delaware Division of Corporations: 2023 Annual Report, Delaware Department of State, A Message from the Secretary of State Jeffrey W. Bullock, https://bit.ly/4sdTJkX. 11. Applebaum, et al., 2058-2060. 12. See Benjamin Raymond Norman and Benjamin M. Burningham, “Recent Developments in Business Courts 2024,” Business Law Today (March 7, 2024), https://bit.ly/3OyDujL. 13. The 2024 effort was not the first attempt to create business courts in Oklahoma. In 2004, a wide-ranging tort reform package was passed, which included a directive to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to adopt rules creating business courts within the Oklahoma and Tulsa County district courts. “Tort Reform – House Bill 2661 (Adair/Hobson),” Okla. State Sen. Leg. Brief (August 2004), https://bit.ly/4u0BfWS (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7). The courts were never funded, however, and the Supreme Court never adopted rules to implement the business courts. Rather than resurrecting SB 632, it is theoretically possible that the Supreme Court could implement the business courts by rule under this latent statute. 14. SB 473, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2025), codified at 20 O.S. §§91.7a, 92.8f and 92.15e. 15. Id. at §2.E (codified at 20 O.S. §§91.7a.E). 16. Id. 17. Task Force for the Study of Business Courts (Dec. 3, 2024) (unpublished) (on file with author). 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. Id. The list included claims arising under or relating to the Oklahoma Uniform Arbitration Act (12 O.S. §1851, et seq.), the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act (78 O.S. §85, et seq.), the Oklahoma Uniform Securities Act of 2004 (71 O.S. §1-101, et seq.), the Oklahoma Uniform Commercial Code (12A §1-101, et seq.), the Oklahoma General Corporation Act (18 O.S. §1001, et seq.), the Oklahoma Revised Uniform Partnership Act (54 O.S. §1-100, et seq.), the Oklahoma Limited Liability Company Act (18 O.S. §2000, et seq.), shareholder or unitholder derivative actions, internal affairs disputes, tort claims between two or more businesses as to their business or investment activities, breach of contract or fraud actions between businesses arising out of business transactions or relationships, or claims arising from e-commerce agreements, technology licensing agreements or intellectual property rights. 21. Id. 22. Id. Matters excluded from the business court’s jurisdiction included claims arising under federal or state law involving: residential landlord and tenant disputes (to the extent they are not business disputes), cases arising under the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, cases arising under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, matters arising under Title 58 relating to probate and matters by or against any governmental entity, political subdivision, arising under Title 19 or arising under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. 23. Id. 24. Id. 25. HB 1562, 2025 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2025). 26. HB 1562 provided for compensation like a district court judge, a term of eight years and appointment by a joint committee on judicial appointment that proposes five nominees to the governor. The joint committee consists of 10 members, five of whom are appointed by the Senate president pro tempore and five by the House speaker. Four of each group would be from the majority party and one from the minority party. The president pro tempore and speaker would appoint the chair of the committee on a rotating two-year basis. Id. at §5. The bill had a list of matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the business courts. Id. at §6. It would have required an initial filing fee of $2,500 and a $50 fee for each motion. Id. at §10. It directed the Supreme Court and the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide for electronic filing. Id. at §11. As introduced, SB 632 provided for all judicial appointments by the governor and a six-year term of service. The bill did not list matters that would lie beyond the business courts’ jurisdiction. The bill did not provide for a filing fee or electronic filings. As SB 632 was reconciled, compromises were made regarding judicial appointments and other provisions from HB 1562 were added. 27. See Section IV of this article. 28. SB 632, at §9. 29. SB 632 amends a variety of sections within Title 20 of the Oklahoma Statutes relating to Oklahoma courts and codifies new laws within Title 20 styled as Sections 91.7b, 91.7d, 91.7e and 91.7f. 30. SB 632, at §5 (amending 20 O.S. §91.7). The population component is determined according to the latest Federal Decennial Census. 31. Id. at §6. Both business court divisions shall be quartered in a location as determined by the chief justice of the Supreme Court in consultation with any state officials or private parties needed to secure appropriate court and office space. Id. 32. Id. at §2 (amending 20 O.S. §95.1.A). 33. Id. at §5 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7b) and §§2 and 4 (amending §92.1A and §125.A). 34. Id. at §4 (codified at §92.1A). 35. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held the method of appointment was unconstitutional, since it departed from the method applicable to other district court judges. To satisfy the constitutional requirements and implement the business courts, the Legislature must amend SB 632 to adopt a comparable appointment methodology. See discussion at endnote 72. 36. Id. at §5.A.1 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7b). 37. Id. The appointment process is a notable deviation from the typical nominating body for district court vacancies – the Judicial Nominating Commission. See text at endnote 67. 38. Id. (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7b). 39. Id. at §5.A.2 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7b). The qualifications for business court judges are more stringent than those for other district court judges. But the added qualifications may pass constitutional scrutiny given the specialized nature of the business courts. 40. The terms and the filling of vacancies was another area that departs from that of regular district court judges and is unconstitutional. The Legislature must presumably conform these methods to match the term and filling of vacancies for other district court judges. 41. Id. at §§5.B.1.-5.B.2 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7b). The initial judge for the Tulsa County business court division shall serve a term of four years beginning Sept. 1, 2025. The eight-year term for business court judges varies from the four-year term designated for district and associate district judges, pursuant to Article 7, Section 8(f) of the Oklahoma Constitution. 42. Id. at §5.B.3. 43. The level of compensation for business court judges is higher than that of other district court judges. The Supreme Court did not address this difference in its opinion, and whether the higher level would pass constitutional muster is uncertain. 44. Id. at §4 (codified at 20 O.S. §92.1A). 45. Id. 46. Id. at §6 (codified at 20 O.S. §91.7c). 47. Steinway v. Griffith Consol. Theatres, 1954 OK 156, ¶¶7-8, 273 P.2d 872. A shareholder derivative action is a claim in the court of equity, and the litigants are not entitled to a jury trial. 48. SB 632, at §6.B. Business courts are also granted the ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any other claim related to a case or controversy within the court’s jurisdiction that forms part of the same case or controversy. Id. at §6.E. 49. Id. at §6.A. The relief sought will also determine whether the parties have a right to a jury trial. See discussion at endnotes 59 through 63. 50. Id. at §6.C. 51. Id. 52. Id. Those factors include but are not limited to whether the action is likely to involve: 1) numerous hearings and pretrial and dispositive motions raising difficult or novel legal issues that will be time-consuming to resolve; 2) management of a large number of witnesses or a substantial amount of documentary evidence; 3) management of a large number of separately represented parties; 4) multiple expert witnesses; 5) coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states or countries or in a federal court; 6) substantial post-judgment judicial supervision; or 7) legal or technical issues of complexity. 53. Id. SB 632 clarifies that the intent of the “complex case” analysis is not intended to include individual consumer claims or transactions involving a retail customer of goods or services who uses or intends to use such goods or services
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==