Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Final thought - don't underestimate the importance of good customer support from your data vendor. When you have questions about specific filings or need help interpreting the data, you want to be able to reach someone who understands UCC filings, not just a generic tech support person.
This is so true. We switched vendors partly because their support team actually understood secured transactions and could help interpret unusual filings.
Good support is worth paying extra for. The time savings alone usually justifies the cost.
This is such a comprehensive discussion - thanks everyone for sharing your experiences! As someone new to UCC data purchasing, I'm really appreciating all the practical advice here. One question I haven't seen addressed yet: how do you typically validate the completeness of purchased data? I'm worried about missing filings that should be in the dataset. Do vendors provide any kind of coverage guarantees or ways to spot-check against the actual Secretary of State records?
Great question about data completeness! From my experience, most reputable vendors will provide some kind of coverage statement, but it's rarely a guarantee. What I usually do is pick a few random dates and filing numbers from a state's SOS website and cross-check them against the vendor's dataset. You can also compare total filing counts by state/month - if the numbers are way off from what the SOS reports, that's a red flag. Some vendors will give you a sample dataset for testing before purchase, which is perfect for this kind of validation.
Another approach I've used is to focus on high-volume filers in your market - like major banks or equipment finance companies - and manually verify a sample of their recent filings against what shows up in the purchased dataset. These institutional filers usually have predictable filing patterns, so gaps become pretty obvious. Also, if you're working with Certana.ai or similar verification tools that @Lena Müller and @Eduardo Silva mentioned, you can upload some known filings from the SOS directly and see if the vendor s version'matches exactly. Discrepancies in basic fields like filing dates or debtor names are usually signs of incomplete data extraction.
Join the conversation
Article 9 security interest perfection seems simple until you actually start doing it. Between debtor name requirements, collateral descriptions, fixture issues, and multi-state complications, there's so many ways to mess it up. At least once you get perfection right, you're generally in good shape priority-wise.
Thanks everyone for all the insights. Sounds like we're on the right track but definitely need to be more careful about the fixture analysis and make sure our collateral descriptions are bulletproof.
Good luck with your perfection issues! Article 9 is complicated but at least it's mostly standardized across states.
As someone new to equipment financing, this thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm just starting to understand UCC Article 9 perfection requirements and had no idea about the fixture vs personal property distinction. It sounds like the key issues to watch for are: 1) proper debtor names on UCC-1 filings, 2) adequate collateral descriptions that cover everything, 3) fixture analysis for permanently attached equipment, 4) PMSI timing requirements (20 days), and 5) continuation filings every 5 years. The mention of automated tools like Certana for document checking is intriguing - seems like it could help catch those costly technical errors before they become problems. Thanks for sharing all this practical knowledge!
Welcome to the UCC perfection nightmare club! You've got a great summary of the key issues. One thing I'd add as a fellow newcomer who learned this the hard way - don't forget about the different state filing requirements if your borrowers operate across state lines. Even with the same UCC system, each state can have slightly different requirements for things like corporate suffixes or LLC designations in debtor names. Also worth noting that while Certana sounds useful for catching document mismatches, you'll still need good legal counsel for the fixture analysis since that's such a fact-specific determination. The 20-day PMSI window is absolutely critical - I've seen deals lose their super-priority status because someone was a day late with the filing!
Join the conversation
The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) is foundational knowledge for anyone in commercial finance. Article 9 specifically deals with secured transactions - how creditors establish and maintain security interests in personal property collateral. Master the basics: perfection, priority, and continuation requirements.
Those three concepts - perfection, priority, continuation - can you explain what each one means?
Perfection = filing to establish your legal claim. Priority = your position relative to other creditors (first to file usually wins). Continuation = renewing your filing before it expires after 5 years.
This thread is so helpful! I'm also new to commercial lending and UCC filings seemed really intimidating at first. One thing that's helped me is creating a simple checklist: 1) Verify exact debtor name from corporate documents, 2) Describe collateral appropriately, 3) Double-check filing state requirements, 4) Set calendar reminder for continuation 6 months before 5-year expiry. The Uniform Commercial Code might be "uniform" in theory but every state has its quirks. Don't be afraid to ask questions - better to look inexperienced than mess up a client's security interest!
Join the conversation
I work in commercial lending and see this confusion a lot. What you're probably looking at is either a bank's internal form that references UCC filings (banks love their own numbering systems) or possibly a UCC-1 where the "1" got written sloppily and looks like "11". I'd recommend checking if there's a standard UCC-1 checkbox section on the form - that's the easiest way to tell if it's an actual state filing versus internal bank documentation. Also look for the official Florida Department of State header at the top, which all real UCC forms should have.
This is really helpful advice! I'll definitely check for the Florida Department of State header - that's a great way to immediately identify legitimate state forms. The checkbox section is another good verification point. Given that this came from a trucking company's files, it's probably exactly what you described - either sloppy handwriting on a UCC-1 or some internal bank tracking form. Thanks for the practical tips on how to distinguish real state filings from all the related paperwork.
As someone who's dealt with business document cleanup before, I'd bet money this is either a UCC-1 with messy handwriting or an internal lender form. The trucking industry especially generates tons of financing paperwork that references UCC filings but isn't actually filed with the state. Try looking for these key identifiers: 1) Official Florida Department of State letterhead at the top, 2) Standard UCC checkbox sections (financing statement, continuation, amendment, etc.), 3) The secretary of state filing stamp if it was actually submitted. If it's missing any of these, it's probably just part of the loan documentation package. Banks and finance companies create their own tracking forms that can easily be mistaken for official state filings.
Statiia Aarssizan
Just to add another perspective - I've been doing UCC filings for about 8 years now and can confirm that business inventory and equipment always require filing for perfection. The automatic perfection rules are really narrow and designed for specific consumer scenarios where the administrative burden of filing would be excessive. For your $85K inventory + $30K equipment situation, you're definitely in filing territory. Also worth noting that even if automatic perfection somehow applied (which it doesn't here), you'd still want to file anyway because it gives you better priority protection and clearer notice to other potential creditors. The filing fees are minimal compared to the risk of having an unperfected security interest. Better to over-file than under-file in commercial lending.
0 coins
Javier Morales
•Absolutely agree with the "better to over-file than under-file" approach. I'm relatively new to secured lending but that's been my takeaway from every experienced attorney I've talked to. The cost-benefit analysis always favors filing when there's any doubt. Thanks for sharing your 8 years of experience - really helpful to hear from someone who's seen how this plays out in practice.
0 coins
Freya Christensen
This is a great discussion and really helpful for someone new to secured lending. I'm just starting out in commercial finance and the distinction between automatic perfection and filing requirements was confusing me too. From everything I'm reading here, it sounds like the rule of thumb is: when dealing with business/commercial collateral (inventory, equipment, etc.), always file the UCC-1. Automatic perfection is really just for specific consumer goods scenarios where filing would be impractical. The point about priority protection is especially important - even if automatic perfection might technically apply in some edge case, the filed UCC-1 gives you better standing against other creditors. For the minimal cost of filing, it seems like the obvious choice for business loans. Thanks everyone for breaking this down so clearly!
0 coins
Sarah Jones
•Exactly! You've got it right. I'm also fairly new to this area and found this thread super educational. The consensus is clear - for any commercial/business collateral, filing is the way to go. The automatic perfection rules seem to be more of a legal curiosity than something that applies in most real-world commercial lending situations. Really appreciate everyone sharing their practical experience here.
0 coins