May 21, 2026 | By: Byron C. Keeling and Brian K. Tully

Recent Texas court decisions are redefining core principles in oil and gas law – from joint operating agreements and insurance coverage to subsurface ownership and royalty rights. For energy companies and investors, these rulings carry significant implications for operations, deal structuring, and litigation risk. This Alert highlights the most impactful developments and what they mean in practice, recently presented at GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar.

Key Takeaways

1. Contract Language Still Reigns Supreme in Joint Operations

In Tex. Crude Energy, LLC v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP, the non-operated working interest owners (Non-Ops) proposed a number of wells to which the Operator consented.  Under the applicable Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), the Operator was required to begin drilling these wells within 90 days, but shortly before that time expired, the Operator then announced its determination that the drilling of the well would not be prudent, and that if the Non-Ops still wanted the well to be drilled, they should resubmit it.

The trial court ruled that the operator did not breach the JOA by doing so.  The court of appeals reversed because the JOA required that if the Operator consented to a well proposed by the Non-Ops, drilling of the well “shall” begin within 90 days, and resubmitting the well was not an adequate remedy.  The Supreme Court of Texas may weigh in on this matter, but “shall means shall,” and Operators cannot rely on broad discretion clauses to avoid explicit contractual duties.

Takeaway: Strict compliance, but not malicious compliance, with JOA provisions is critical to avoid operational disputes, particularly where the Non-Ops and the Operator may have different incentives with regard to the drilling of wells or development plans.

2. Insurance Coverage Disputes Are Expanding in Scope

In BPX Production Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, the insured poorly performed a cement job at a well, causing it to have to be shut in.  The insured tendered the dispute to its insurer, which denied coverage, effectively cutting the insured loose.  After the insured declared bankruptcy, the Operator was able to take an assignment of claims that the insured had against its insurer for the failure to provide coverage.  The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12, holding that the Operator could bring such claims against the insurer and determine both the coverage issues as well as the insured’s underlying liability for the event, in a single proceeding under the Hamel line of cases.

Takeaway: All may not be lost when the party causing harm declares bankruptcy, and its insurer has denied coverage.  If the denial of coverage was wrongful, the injured party may be able to step into the insured’s shoes and assert claims against the insurer directly.

3. Conditions Precedent Can Halt Development Entirely

In Endeavor Energy Resources v. Comanche Maverick Ranch Investments, the lease and surface agreement at issue referenced that seismic testing would be done under mutually-agreeable terms in a subsequent agreement, but the landowner later refused to negotiate.  Because the existence of a seismic testing agreement was found to be a condition precedent, no obligation existed to negotiate or act in good faith. Projects can stall indefinitely if triggering conditions are not satisfied.

Takeaway: Be wary of clauses leaving key terms on related issues to be determined in a separately-negotiated agreement.  There might not be any obligation for the other party to negotiate such an agreement at all.

4. The Surface Owner Usually Owns Any Subsurface Cavern or Pore Space

In Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC, the Texas Supreme Court confirmed that surface owners, not mineral owners, generally own subsurface pore space and caverns. It overruled prior conflicting precedent; however, it recognized that mineral owners and operators under oil and gas leases may still use subsurface space as reasonably necessary for production.

Takeaway: A producer that wants to use any subsurface space for commercial purposes (e.g., storage) may want to secure an agreement with the surface owner.

5. Royalty Rights Continue to Evolve

The Myers-Woodward case also confirmed that a royalty of “1/8 of all oil, gas, and minerals” is an in-kind royalty interest. When producers sell the in-kind royalty owner’s fractional share of the production, the producer generally should pay the royalty owner its fractional share of the net proceeds.

In Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. v. Puig, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the term “free of cost” in an in-kind royalty clause refers to pre-production costs, not post-production costs.  A “free of cost” term in an in-kind royalty clause does not change the fact that an in-kind royalty owner is generally entitled to receive only its fractional share of the net proceeds; the royalty owner is not entitled to demand a fractional share of the gross proceeds.

Takeaway: Royalty clause language continues to be under heightened scrutiny, but as always, the Texas Supreme Court tries to enforce royalty clauses as they are written.

6. Produced Water Ownership Is Now Clear—But Questions Remain

In Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, produced water is part of the mineral estate unless expressly reserved. However, unresolved issues include:

• Whether royalties apply to produced water
• How profits from reuse or disposal are allocated
• Potential implied duties regarding water management

Takeaway: This area is primed for the next wave of litigation.

The Bottom Line

Texas courts are actively redefining foundational oil and gas principles, often in ways that elevate the importance of contract clarity, strategic drafting, and proactive risk management.

From JOAs and insurance coverage to subsurface rights and emerging asset classes like produced water, the message is clear: small drafting decisions can have outsized legal and financial consequences. Companies that stay ahead of these developments will be better positioned to protect value and avoid costly disputes.

This series covers topics featured during GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar. To receive Alerts and information on future Firm events, subscribe to our mailing list.

Byron C. Keeling
246-594-5007
bkeeling@gablelaw.com

Brian K. Tully
346-200-6017
btully@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May, 19 2026 | By: Ethan T. Mock

The global race for critical minerals is no longer a future prospect; it is a current economic and national security imperative. As highlighted in recent reporting by Bloomberg Law, the surge in demand for rare earth metals, essential for everything from electric vehicle batteries to defense technologies, has propelled a specialized niche in the legal sector. At GableGotwals, we are uniquely positioned to lead in this arena, offering a powerhouse trifecta of expertise in Federal Indian Law, sophisticated transactional law, and direct BIA regulatory experience. Our reputation has earned us a Band 1 ranking in Energy and Natural Resources, Native American Law, Corporate/Commercial, and Environment by Chambers & Partners.

The Tribal Frontier of Critical Minerals

The Bloomberg Law analysis underscores that many of the most significant untapped deposits of critical minerals are located on or near tribal lands. However, unlocking this potential requires navigating a jurisdictional landscape that many law firms find impenetrable. Over time, GableGotwals has developed strong relationships with local tribes and is ready to bridge this gap with its dedicated attorneys, many of whom are tribal members. We are committed to facilitating between Native American tribal governments and businesses to achieve economic development.

With a premier Native American Law practice, our Firm understands the nuances of tribal sovereignty and the essential role of tribal nations as partners in the global energy transition. We don’t just see a mining deal; we see a path toward tribal economic self-determination and sustainable resource management.

Transactional Precision Meets Federal Insight

Successful mining deals in Indian Country require more than just an understanding of the minerals; they require a mastery of the “machinery” of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). The complexity of subsurface leasing is where projects often stall, trapped in the regulatory requirements of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our team includes attorneys with direct, “inside-the-agency” experience at the BIA. This specialized background provides our clients with:

• Regulatory Fluency: Deep knowledge of the Indian Mineral Leasing Act and the Indian Mineral Development Act to structure flexible, high-value agreements.
• Navigational Expertise: An intimate understanding of BIA Standard Operating Procedures and the internal flow of lease approvals, ensuring that environmental and appraisal standards are met without unnecessary delays.
• Risk Mitigation: Transactional experts who can draft and negotiate complex joint ventures and development agreements while ensuring strict compliance with federal trust responsibilities.

Integrated Transactional & Environmental Practices

Beyond Indian law and BIA leasing, GableGotwals brings a full-service platform to critical-minerals projects, pairing sophisticated deal counsel with environmental and regulatory guidance. Our transactional team structures acquisitions, joint ventures, offtake arrangements, and financing to allocate risk, protect value, and keep projects bankable. In parallel, our environmental practice helps clients anticipate and address permitting and compliance issues early, including NEPA strategy, air and water approvals, cultural-resource considerations, and remediation planning, so transactions can close with clear, practical pathways to development and operations.

Ready for the Mining Paradigm Shift

As the market for rare earth minerals evolves, the legal counsel supporting it must be equally sophisticated. GableGotwals offers the rare combination: “Big Law” transactional capability paired with the niche, technical expertise of BIA leasing, environmental, and Indian Law. This expertise is made possible by many of our attorneys who formerly practiced at AmLaw 100 firms, former in-house counsel at major energy companies, and those who graduated top of their class from prestigious universities.

Whether you are a tribal nation seeking to leverage your subsurface assets for the next generation of energy, or a commercial developer looking to navigate the federal trust landscape, GableGotwals has the expertise to move your mining project from prospecting to production. We are not just observing the race for rare earth minerals; we are providing the roadmap for our clients to lead it.

 Ethan T. Mock
918-595-4875
emock@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May, 14 2026 | By: Thomas J. Hutchison

Closing an energy transaction is not the finish line, it is the beginning of a new phase of risk. Post-closing disputes are common in energy deals, often arising from purchase price adjustments, title defects, environmental liabilities, and operational misalignment. This Alert highlights where disputes arise and how thoughtful structuring can mitigate exposure. recently presented at GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar.

1. Purchase Price Adjustments Are a Frequent Source of Conflict

• Post-closing true-ups are standard, but often contentious.
• Disputes typically stem from:
  • Differing accounting methodologies
  • Working capital calculations
  • Ambiguities in the purchase agreement
• Mitigation tip: Clearly define adjustment mechanics and align accounting principles upfront to reduce ambiguity

2. Title Defects Require Precision in Drafting and Diligence

• Energy deals rely heavily on detailed title frameworks, including:
  • Definitions of “Defensible Title” and “Permitted Encumbrances”
  • Thresholds, deductibles, and valuation methodologies
• Pre-closing diligence is critical, but post-closing remedies are often limited to special warranty protections for a defined period
• Mitigation tip: Ensure purchase and sale agreements (PSAs) clearly outline defect remedies, timelines, and valuation methods

3. Environmental Liabilities Can Be Underestimated

• Known environmental issues are typically addressed through:
  • Specific indemnities
  • Purchase price adjustments
• Unknown risks present greater challenges:
  • Representations and warranties may be narrowly scoped
  • Buyers may face limited recourse without robust protections
• Mitigation tip: Accurately quantify remediation costs and negotiate flexibility to exclude high-risk assets

4. Post-Closing Operations Can Trigger Disputes Quickly

• Common friction points include:
  • Misallocated revenues and expenses
  • Ineffective “true-up” mechanisms
  • Delays in redirecting payments from third parties
• Overlapping remedies can further complicate resolution
• Mitigation tip: Establish clear operational transition protocols and avoid duplicative or conflicting remedies

5. Transition Services Agreements (TSAs) Offer Limited Protection

• TSAs are often:
  • Narrow in scope
  • Limited in enforceability (e.g., gross negligence standards)
• Practical risks include:
  • Lack of continuity if key personnel are unavailable post-closing
• Mitigation tip: Confirm operational readiness and do not over-rely on TSAs for critical business functions.

The Bottom Line

Energy M&A deals do not end at closing. Without careful structuring, diligence, and post-closing planning, routine provisions can evolve into costly disputes. Companies that proactively address these risks ― through precise drafting, realistic valuations, and operational alignment — are better positioned to protect deal value and avoid litigation.

If you have any questions, please contact any member of GableGotwals’ Energy, Oil & Gas team.

This series covers topics featured during GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar. To receive Alerts and information on future Firm events, subscribe to our mailing list.

Thomas J. Hutchison
918-595-4858
thutchison@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May 11, 2026 | By: Scott Kiplinger and Tim Sullivan

On May 6, 2026, Governor Stitt signed House Bill 1371, enacting the most significant amendments to the Oklahoma Production Revenue Standards Act (“PRSA”) since its adoption in 1980. The amendments become effective November 1, 2026.

The PRSA establishes Oklahoma’s statutory framework governing the timing and manner in which producing owners and operators must remit to interest owners their share of the proceeds received from the sale of oil and gas production to mineral owners. In general, the statute requires payment to commence within six months after first sale and continue on a periodic basis thereafter. If proceeds are not timely paid, the PRSA imposes statutory interest and provides mineral owners with an exclusive remedy to recover unpaid proceeds and interest, subject to limited exceptions. Historically, disputes under the PRSA have focused on the accrual of interest during title defects, probate proceedings, and other common delays, as well as disputes over royalties not paid due to disagreement over the point at which gas becomes marketable. Such disputes could result in substantial interest exposure and litigation costs for producing owners and operators due to the statutory interest alleged to have accrued under the PRSA (and potentially still accruing during the pendency of a lawsuit). Even when proceeds were held in good-faith suspense, operators could face ongoing interest exposure at 12% compounded annually (or 6% for unmarketable title).

HB 1371 materially reshapes the PRSA interest regime, clarifying when interest does and does not accrue, and it creates a new statutory mechanism allowing operators to escrow long-term unpaid proceeds if they cannot locate the mineral owner and obtain a release from future liability.

HB 1371 replaces the prior 12% compounded annual interest rate with a 15% simple interest rate for untimely paid proceeds. While the nominal rate is higher, eliminating compounding substantially narrows the historical escalation of PRSA interest exposure.

The Legislation also clarifies that interest does not accrue during several common, good-faith payment delays, including probate proceedings, unresolved lien disputes, owner-requested payment holds, and situations involving uncashed or returned checks or rejected electronic payments. Importantly, these non-accrual periods are available provided the operator maintains appropriate records and demonstrates reasonable diligence.

Another consequential change for operators is HB 1371 establishes a Mineral Owner’s Fund, an escrow account administered by the State Treasurer. After proceeds remain unpaid for 36 months, operators may remit the proceeds and accrued interest to the Fund, thereby fully discharging further payment and interest liability. This mechanism functions as a statutory alternative to interpleader, allowing operators to eliminate long-term suspense exposure without court involvement. Mineral owners retain the right to recover funds directly from the State upon proof of identity and ownership. In this manner, HB 1371 also aligned the PRSA with Oklahoma’s Unclaimed Property Act by clarifying that mineral proceeds are not presumed abandoned until 36 months after they become due, unless earlier remitted to the Mineral Owner’s Fund.

Taken together, the House Bill 1371 amendments to the PRSA represent the most comprehensive modernization of PRSA in decades, raising the stakes for true noncompliance while offering operators clearer rules, defined interest boundaries, and predictable exit from prolonged suspense situations.

This Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Firm’s Energy Practice Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other energy questions, please contact Scott or a member of our team.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

Tim Sullivan
918-595-4863
tsullivan@gablelaw.com

This alert is provided as a summary for information purposes. It does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. It is not intended or written to be used and may not be used by any person to avoid penalties imposed under Oklahoma laws. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any stated information should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May 7, 2026 | By: James F. Lea, III and David G. Woodral

In an industry increasingly driven by technology, data, and innovation, intellectual property (IP) is no longer a niche concern, it’s a core business asset. From patents and trade secrets to trademarks and copyrights, understanding how IP rights are created, protected, and transferred is critical to preserving value and avoiding costly disputes. This Alert breaks down the fundamentals and highlights key contractual considerations recently presented at GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar.

Key Takeaways

1. Intellectual Property Comes in Multiple Forms – Each with Distinct Protections

The primary types of IP include:

• Patents (protect inventions and processes)
• Trademarks (protect brand identifiers such as names, logos, and slogans)
• Copyrights (protect original works of authorship)
• Trade Secrets (protect confidential business information)

Each of these categories has different legal standards, duration of protection, and enforcement mechanisms.

2. Patents Provide Powerful, but Limited, Rights

Under the U.S. Patent Act, patents protect new and useful inventions, processes, or improvements. To qualify, inventions must be novel and non-obvious. Patent holders gain the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention. Rights generally last 20 years from filing.

3. Timing Is Everything – Early Disclosure Can Destroy Patent Rights

Patent protection can be lost if an invention is:

• Publicly disclosed
• Offered for sale
• Used publicly before filing

While U.S. law provides a limited grace period, disclosing the invention to the public prior to filing presents risks. Be sure to file early or risk losing protection entirely.

4. Ownership Is Not Always Automatic

By default, inventors own patent rights.  An employment relationship can change this, but the best practice is to address IP ownership through employment agreements and assignment provisions.

For copyrights, “Work made for hire” doctrines may assign ownership to employers, but only in specific circumstances.

Failure to properly address ownership of IP can undermine ownership claims.

5. Trade Secrets Require Active Protection

Trade secrets include:

• Proprietary data
• Processes
• Software or formulas

Protection depends on maintaining secrecy and implementing reasonable safeguards (e.g., NDAs, access controls). However, once disclosed, protection may be lost permanently.

6. Contracts Are the Front Line of IP Risk Management

Key contractual considerations include:

• Ownership of newly developed IP during a project
• Assignment obligations for inventions
• Confidentiality provisions to preserve trade secrets

Agreements should clearly define:

• Who owns what
• Who can use what
• Under what conditions

7. Licensing Strategy Can Make or Break Value

Patent licenses can:

• Be explicit or implied (though explicit is best practice)
• Be limited by geography, time, or field of use, or other parameters

The patent exhaustion doctrine (or first sale doctrine) may prevent enforcement after an authorized sale of a particular item.

Poorly structured licenses may unintentionally give away rights.

8. IP Rights Must Align with Business Strategy

Patents function as a limited legal monopoly, but only within defined boundaries. Risks to manage include:

• Expiration of rights
• Loss through litigation or administrative challenges
• Failure to maintain patents (e.g., unpaid fees)

Be sure to align IP protection and licensing strategy with long-term commercial goals.

The Bottom Line

Intellectual property is one of the most valuable and most misunderstood assets in the energy sector. Without careful planning, companies risk losing rights, undermining deals, or exposing themselves to litigation.

By proactively managing IP through thoughtful drafting, early filing strategies, and clear contractual frameworks, energy companies can protect innovation, preserve competitive advantage, and unlock long-term value.

GableGotwals Intellectual Property Practice Group advises clients on patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, licensing, and other intellectual property matters. The team regularly works with clients across a variety of industries, including the energy sector, to help protect innovation, manage intellectual property risks, and develop strategies tailored to each client’s business objectives. For questions regarding this topic or other intellectual property matters, please contact the authors or a member of our Intellectual Property team.

This series covers topics featured during GableGotwals’ Annual Energy Market Drivers and Current Legal Issues Seminar. To receive Alerts and information on future Firm events, subscribe to our mailing list.

James F. Lea, III
918-595-4884
jlea@gablelaw.com

 David G. Woodral
OK: 918-595-4883
TX: 346-594-5009
dwoodral@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

May 5, 2026 | By: Ellen A. Adams and Trisha E. Bunce

Oklahoma has passed HB 3127, updating its Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 63, § 427.8) effective November 1, 2026. The changes matter in two practical ways:

1. They reframe how employers designate “safety-sensitive” positions; and
2. They expand when an employer may rely on a positive marijuana test to take adverse action against applicants and employees.

If you have Oklahoma operations, this is the right time to revisit your safety-sensitive positions and drug-testing framework. You should prepare now to provide the requisite 10-day notice of policy changes in the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 40, § 551 et seq.) well before the effective date of the new rules.

There’s also an important federal backdrop that employers must consider in responding to the enactment of HB 3127. The Department of Justice has acted on Executive Order 14370, and issued a final rule, reclassifying cannabis and cannabis containing products covered by a state medical marijuana license, from Schedule I to Schedule III. While the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) has not changed its rules yet, employers are encouraged to keep following DOT guidance and regulations for potential changes. Because Schedule III drugs are not “illegal” per se, policies prohibiting “illegal” drugs may create ambiguity. Further, depending on the facts, because medical marijuana licensed under state law is no longer categorically “illegal” under federal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (the “ADA”), may require accommodation unless that accommodation would result in “undue hardship” or the accommodation would pose a “direct threat” – both legal terms of art requiring detailed analysis.

On safety-sensitive roles, Oklahoma’s amendment moves away from the old “reasonable belief” approach and uses an example-based list that still gives employers some room to designate similar jobs as safety-sensitive. Once you designate a job as safety-sensitive, Oklahoma law allows a zero-tolerance approach: you may take adverse action based on a positive marijuana test even if the applicant or employee has a medical marijuana license. That said, you still need to account for the federal reclassification and the ADA when deciding what action to take in a particular situation, and DOT rules continue to control for DOT-regulated roles.

Outside safety-sensitive roles, Oklahoma’s amendment also broadens when you can act on a positive test. You may take action if the person doesn’t have a valid medical marijuana license; if a licensee possesses, uses, or is under the influence at work or while performing job duties; or (this is the notable change) if your action is based on a written policy that complies with the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act. In practice, a compliant policy lets you rely on a positive marijuana test even for non-safety-sensitive positions under Oklahoma law. Given the federal shift to Schedule III, however, it’s wise to think carefully about which roles you test and why, and to consult experienced employment counsel before you finalize your approach.

What should employers do between now and November 1, 2026?

• Identify all positions subject to DOT regulations;
• Reevaluate which roles you will treat as safety-sensitive and make sure they align with the statute’s amendments;
• Consider which jobs could create a “direct threat” if someone is under the influence of medical marijuana and document your analysis;
• Decide where, when, and why you will test for marijuana based on your business objectives;
• Update your written testing policy so it complies with the Oklahoma Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (Okla. Stat. Tit. 40, § 551 et seq.);
• Review and tighten policy language that bans “illegal drugs” to avoid ambiguity;
• Determine how you will administer a zero-tolerance policy for safety-sensitive roles;
• Refresh HR guidance and supervisor training on the interactive process and disability accommodations to address the federal reclassification of medical marijuana products licensed under Oklahoma state law;
• Consult with your experienced employment counsel to align state and federal requirements with your goals; and
• Develop a communication plan to announce and explain upcoming policy changes to employees.

GableGotwals’ Labor & Employment attorneys are well-versed in recent developments regarding the state-sanctioned marijuana industry and how those developments impact employers. If you need help in any of these areas, please contact any GableGotwals Labor & Employment attorney.

Ellen A. Adams
405-235-5520
eadams@gablelaw.com

Trisha E. Bunce
405-235-5596
tbunce@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

April 21, 2026 | By: Scott Kiplinger

On April 20, 2026, President Trump issued a Presidential Determination under the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) to increase domestic energy production in an effort to address shortages related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. This follows the administration’s invocation of the DPA in March, which directed a California operator to restore operations of an offshore unit and pipeline system.

Section 303 of the DPA authorizes the President to restore or expand domestic industrial capabilities, which are essential for the national defense. Such measures may include purchasing resources for government use or resale, funding exploration and production activities, and sponsoring commercial research and development.

The DPA also includes specific limits on federal commercial activity by prohibiting the purchase of materials below the current domestic market price and limiting the timeline on which those materials may be developed and delivered. However, the President may waive those limitations should he determine it is necessary to avert an industrial resource shortfall that would severely impair national defense capability. President Trump’s Determination explicitly waived those statutory limitations in order to advance large-scale energy infrastructure.

It is unlikely that yesterday’s Directive will have an immediate effect on consumer prices. Since taking office, the Trump administration has pushed for increased domestic energy production to counter shortfalls caused in part by regulatory and market constraints. These forecasted shortfalls have been exacerbated by overseas events, and the administration’s response is in keeping with its support for energy development across the board. But it remains unclear which specific mechanisms, such as purchasing commitments or infrastructure funding, the government will use under the DPA.

Presidential authority under the DPA is broad, but temporary, and subject to statutory controls and legal challenges. Operators and consumers should therefore continue to monitor future executive action to determine new opportunities for enhanced growth spurred by reduced regulatory controls.

Scott Kiplinger is an attorney at GableGotwals. This Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Firm’s Energy Practice Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other energy questions, please contact Scott or a member of our team.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

April 20, 2026 | By: Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP and Trisha E. Bunce

Oklahoma legislators are considering SB 277, a proposal that would create a state-run paid family and medical leave insurance program known as the Oklahoma State Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act. If enacted, SB 277 would require employer payroll contributions to a new state fund and would create job protection and benefit-continuation obligations similar in several respects to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), while also adding new state-specific rules.

Pending legislation: SB 277 Bill Information (Oklahoma Legislature)

Committee Substitute text: SB 277 CS (PDF)

Official bill summary: SB 277 CS Bill Summary (PDF)

Other employer-related bill categories pending this session

• Payroll and wage-withholding administration (e.g., wage garnishments)
• Earned wage access / on-demand pay regulation
• Employer health plan transparency and contracting restrictions
• Unemployment insurance eligibility and appeals process changes

Spotlight on SB 277 (as currently drafted)

1. Covered Employers
   SB 277 defines “Employer” broadly to include essentially any individual or business employing any person in Oklahoma. The Committee Substitute text does not describe a minimum employee-count threshold in the employer definition.
2. Covered Individuals (employees and certain self-employed persons)
   • A “covered individual” includes a person who earns a threshold amount determined annually by the Oklahoma Workforce Commission during the base period or alternative base period.
   • Self-employed persons may elect coverage and participate if they meet statutory requirements.
   • “Family member” includes child, parent/guardian (including in loco parentis relationships), spouse, grandparent, grandchild, and sibling (including biological, foster, adoptive, and step relationships).
3. Qualifying Reasons for Paid Leave
   
   • Caring for a new child (birth, adoption, foster placement) and certain pre-placement needs.
   • Caring for a family member with a serious health condition.
   • The employee’s own serious health condition (including pregnancy or pregnancy loss).
   • Qualifying exigency leave, safe leave, and other reasons referenced in the FMLA framework (as incorporated in SB 277).
4. Duration of Leave and Wage Replacement
   
   • Leave is capped at 12 weeks for the categories described in the Committee Substitute in an application year.
   • Wage replacement uses a two-tier formula based on the covered individual’s average weekly wage: 90% up to 50% of the statewide average weekly wage; 50% above that threshold.
   • Benefits are not payable until the individual accumulates at least 4 hours of family and medical leave.
   • Employees with multiple jobs may elect leave from one or both jobs; intermittent or reduced schedule leave is permitted.
5. What Employers Would Be Required to Do
   
   • Payroll contributions: remit contributions to a new Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund for each employee, in the form/manner set by the Oklahoma Workforce Commission.
   • Withholding option: employers may deduct a portion of required contributions from employee wages (as determined by the Commission) but must remit 100% of required contributions.
   • Job restoration: restore employees returning from leave to the same or equivalent position with equivalent seniority, status, pay, and benefits.
   • Benefit continuation: maintain health care benefits during leave as if the employee had continued working, with premium-sharing continuing as before.
   • Anti-interference/anti-retaliation: do not interfere with or retaliate against employees for requesting or using leave; do not count SB 277 leave as an attendance occurrence under absence-control policies.
   • Notice requirements: provide written notice of rights and key program information; violations are subject to statutory fines (as described in the Committee Substitute and bill summary).
6. Coordination with FMLA, PTO, and Disability Programs
   SB 277 provides that leave taken with SB 277 benefits that also qualify as FMLA leave generally runs concurrently with FMLA leave. The bill also addresses coordination with short-term disability and separate employer leave banks, and limits when employers can require employees to exhaust accrued PTO.

Recommended Steps for Employers

1. Identify internal owners (HR, payroll, benefits, legal) and map current leave workflows (FMLA/STD/PTO).
2. Ask payroll providers what configuration changes are needed for a state-run leave contribution program.
3. Draft an employee notice template aligned to SB 277’s notice topics.
4. Audit attendance and discipline policies to ensure protected leave would not be counted as an occurrence.
5. Plan staffing coverage for intermittent leave and extended absences.

For questions regarding SB 277, or any other employment and labor questions, please contact your GableGotwals attorney or a member of our Employment & Labor Group.

Chris S. Thrutchley, SHRM-SCP
918-595-4810
cthrutchley@gablelaw.com

Trisha E. Bunce
405-235-5596
tbunce@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

April 14, 2026 | By: Jason T. Seay, AIGP, CIPP-US

Professional associations typically function as member-focused organizations responsible for advocacy, education, professional standards, and engagement. Many professional associations, such as those for real estate professionals, have affiliated entities that are often structured as separate corporate organizations charged with operating and maintaining technology platforms used by the professional association members.

Although such affiliated entities exist to serve the broader membership, operational separation is intentional. Independent governance helps address legal, contractual, antitrust, and data-security requirements while allowing the organization to remain responsive to innovation and industry change. Strategic alignment between entities is maintained through governance practices rather than day-to-day management overlap.

Board Governance and Fiduciary Duties

Board members across associations and affiliated organizations share fundamental fiduciary obligations, including the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty of obedience. These duties require directors to act in the best interests of the organization, make informed and prudent decisions, avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure compliance with governing documents and applicable laws. Boards are responsible for governance, not management. Their role centers on strategic direction, policy oversight, financial stewardship, and executive leadership support and evaluation. Operational execution is delegated to professional staff. Preserving this distinction is critical to accountability and effective leadership.

Strategic Oversight and Financial Stewardship

A core responsibility of any board is long-term strategic planning. This includes establishing priorities, approving budgets, monitoring financial performance, and ensuring adequate reserves to support future operations. For technology-focused entities, this oversight often extends to major system investments, vendor relationships, and infrastructure decisions that affect a wide range of users. Board members are expected to understand the organization’s financial model, including revenue sources, expense drivers, and internal controls, so they can ask informed questions and exercise sound judgment. Transparency, risk management, and fiscal responsibility are central to this role.

Data Governance, Compliance, and Risk Management

Organizations that manage large volumes of member or consumer data face heightened compliance and risk considerations. Board oversight typically includes ensuring adherence to applicable policies, licensing agreements, privacy standards, and security protocols. Decisions involving data access, system rules, and technology enhancements must balance innovation with fairness, consistency, and legal compliance. As data systems increasingly integrate with third-party platforms and expand into new use cases, governance challenges continue to evolve. Boards play a critical role in safeguarding data integrity, organizational credibility, and public trust.

Collaboration and Aligned Leadership

When associations and affiliated organizations operate within a shared ecosystem, collaboration among boards and leadership teams is essential. Clear communication, aligned strategic goals, and coordinated decision-making help ensure that actions taken by one entity support the broader mission and membership. This unified approach reduces duplication of effort, strengthens organizational resilience, and positions all entities to adapt effectively to regulatory, technological, and market changes.

Conclusion

Effective governance depends on informed and engaged board members who understand both their fiduciary responsibilities and the broader organizational ecosystem in which they operate. By focusing on strategic leadership, financial stewardship, compliance oversight, and collaborative governance, boards help ensure their organizations remain stable, compliant, and well-positioned to serve their members now and in the future.

This Alert was prepared by Jason Seay. The Corporate Compliance and Risk Management team at GableGotwals regularly advises clients on governance, fiduciary responsibilities, compliance frameworks, and risk management. For assistance, please contact the author or visit our Corporate Compliance and Risk Management Practice page.

Jason T. Seay, AIGP, CIPP-US

918-595-4832

jseay@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.

March 18, 2026 | By: Scott Kiplinger

The Trump administration’s recent use of the Defense Production Act (“DPA”) to open a segment of a pipeline off the coast of Santa Barbara signals to our energy clients that the exigencies of the ongoing dispute in the Middle East may affect ongoing operations.

The federal government recently directed Sable Offshore Corporation to restore operations of the Santa Ynez Unit and Santa Ynez Pipeline System. This follows previous efforts from the administration to stabilize global oil markets disrupted by conflict in the Middle East, which has included releasing 172 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and coordinating with members of the International Energy Agency to release up to an additional 400 million barrels.

As global events unfold, domestic energy companies should be aware that the current administration is willing to consider unorthodox approaches to increase production capacity, subject to challenges from state and local authorities.

The administration issued the order to resume operations pursuant to the DPA, a federal law enacted in 1950, which permits the federal government to enact regulations and orders to allocate materials in the interest of national defense. In addition to wartime efforts, previous administrations have invoked the DPA to respond to natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and foreign cyberattacks. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright stated the directive will permit Sable to produce 50,000 barrels of oil per day and decrease domestic reliance on foreign crude oil. Sable resumed operations along the pipeline on the day the administration issued its order.

This offshore oil platform and pipeline have been shuttered for 11 years, and Sable has attempted to resume operations since it purchased the assets from ExxonMobil in 2024. California has contested the administration’s order, claiming that it violates the state’s regulatory authority and poses an environmental hazard. Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement pledging to challenge the order in court, alluding to a 2015 incident in which the pipeline released thousands of barrels of crude oil along the Santa Barbara coastline. Sable reports the company completed its onshore anomaly repair program and hydrotested all pipeline segments in May of 2025.

The administration’s use of the DPA signals a willingness to intervene directly in energy infrastructure operations where supply, transportation capacity, or national security concerns are implicated. Oklahoma producers and midstream operators should be mindful that federal intervention is possible, with potential upside to unlock capacity and constraint issues and cut through permitting delays. But these opportunities also carry litigation, regulatory, and operational risk. Against this backdrop, energy companies should evaluate how federal authorities could affect existing assets, expansion plans, and idle or constrained infrastructure.

Scott Kiplinger is an attorney at GableGotwals. This Alert was prepared in collaboration with the Firm’s Energy Practice Group in a continuing effort to keep our clients informed of the transitions of law within the areas they operate. For questions regarding this development, or any other energy questions, please contact Scott or a member of our team.

Scott Kiplinger
405-568-3317
skiplinger@gablelaw.com

This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be taken as an indication of future legal results; any information provided should not be acted upon without consulting legal counsel.