Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Business Court topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers propose a commission to study creating a New Hampshire chancery/business court
Summary
Proponents told the Senate Judiciary committee HB1419 would create a commission to study whether a specialized business or chancery court could attract incorporations and commercial litigation to New Hampshire; supporters cited economic development and university assets while senators asked about overlap with existing Business & Economic Affairs work.
Sponsor testimony on HB1419 framed the bill as a study and planning effort, not an immediate restructuring of the judiciary. The sponsor said the measure seeks a commission to examine whether New Hampshire can better align courts, academic institutions (UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law), and legal talent to attract corporate filings and commercial litigation. "We are looking to understand ... whether our existing business law, court structure, legal talent and academic institutions can be aligned to make New Hampshire more competitive as a corporate and commercial law jurisdiction," the sponsor told the committee.
Supporters said the goal is to study options — including whether an independent chancery-like court is appropriate — and produce timely recommendations. Representative Mary Murphy, a co‑sponsor, called the proposal part of a broader strategy labelled "New Hampshire Advantage 2.0" to diversify revenue away from tourism and property taxes by recruiting higher-margin industries like life sciences and technology.
Committee members pressed sponsors on practical overlaps with existing Business & Economic Affairs (BEA) work and on whether the 2020 BEA recruitment strategy remains current. The sponsor said BEA does economic development work but does not generally draft specific legislative recommendations, and asserted BEA had limited staffing (citing $50,000 allocated to recruitment from a $14.6 million budget) for business recruitment efforts.
Proponents argued the commission could review a range of structural and statutory options and, if warranted, recommend legislation. Several co-sponsors stressed that the commission would be able to examine whether tweaks to the current Superior Court docket or a new specialized court would best serve state interests. The hearing transcript does not record a committee vote; sponsors asked the committee to recommend passage.
