Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 1-9-504
A financing statement sufficiently indicates the collateral that it covers if the financing statement provides:
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-9-504
Oklahoma Code Comment
Section 9-504 differentiates the requirements for a description of the collateral in a financing statement from those in the security agreement in accordance with court decisions under prior law, such as Consolidated Equipment Sales, Inc. v. First Bank & Trust Co. of Guthrie, Oklahoma, 627 P.2d 432 (Okla. 1981) (all that is required in financing statement is notice sufficient to place the inquiring party on guard to further inquiry), and Security State Bank of Wewoka v. Dooley, 604 P.2d 153 (Okla. App. 1979) (description in financing statement need not be specific; it is enough to indicate the types of collateral). Thus, a description sufficient for the security agreement under section 9-108 , or a description like "all assets" or "all personal property," will suffice in the financing statement. This overrules some unduly restrictive bankruptcy decisions, such as In re Fuqua, 330 F. Supp. 1050 (D. Kan. 1971) (description in financing statement covering all personal property deemed to be inadequate).
Nonetheless, because the signature of the debtor is no longer required on a financing statement ( section 9-502 ) , the secured party must be authorized to file a financing statement. See section 9-509 . This commonly is done in the security agreement. If so, and if the security agreement description is narrow, a broad description in the financing statement may not be authorized, leading to liability ( section 9-625) or record confusion ( section 9-518); however, the financing statement should still be effective to the extent of authorization ( section 9-510(a)). To avoid such problems either the authorization should be constructed broadly in the security agreement, or a broad authorization should be provided in the loan application (which also would be desirable if the secured party desires to pre-file ( section 9-502(d) before the security agreement is authenticated, although if and when the security agreement is authenticated, that will constitute authorization under section 9-509(b) ).
Oklahoma under old section 9-204 applied a restrictive test to broad clauses subjecting multiple obligations of different types owed by the debtor to the granted security interest. See Security National Bank and Trust Co. of Norman v. Dentsply Professional Plan, 617 P.2d 1340 (Okla. 1980). Were a court so inclined, under revised Article 9 it ought not to apply this concept to a broad description in a financing statement that extends beyond the collateral description in the security agreement as the filing might be in anticipation of further transactions, even though not specifically contemplated at the time. Indeed, it is for this reason that Official Comment 5 to revised section 9-204 rejects holdings of cases like Dentsply that apply tests such as whether a future advance or other subsequently incurred obligation is of the same or a similar type or class as an earlier advance and obligation secured by the collateral.