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
One more suggestion - consider getting access to a good form book too. Even if you understand the law, having well-drafted forms as starting points saves a lot of time. Some of the treatises include forms but dedicated form books are usually better.
West's Forms series has a good secured transactions volume. Also check if your state bar has published forms - sometimes those are more current for local practice.
Just be careful with forms - they're starting points but need to be tailored for each deal. I've seen people use forms blindly and miss important collateral or create conflicts.
Really appreciate all the detailed recommendations here! Based on everyone's input, I'm thinking of starting with Warren's hornbook to get the conceptual foundation, then moving to White & Summers for the comprehensive treatment. The state-specific practice guide suggestion is spot-on too - I've been struggling with procedural variations between states. And @Keisha Brown, I'm definitely going to check out that Certana tool for document verification. Three rejections in a row sounds like my nightmare scenario! Question for the group: do any of these resources cover the interplay between Article 9 and bankruptcy law? I'm seeing more distressed deals lately and want to make sure I understand how secured positions are treated in Chapter 11 cases.
Great strategy on the Warren → White & Summers progression! For the bankruptcy piece, White & Summers does cover some Article 9/bankruptcy interactions but you'll probably want a dedicated bankruptcy treatise too. The secured creditor rights in Chapter 11 can get really complex, especially around adequate protection and cash collateral issues. Collier on Bankruptcy has good coverage of how UCC perfection affects bankruptcy priority, though it's another hefty investment. The interplay between state law perfection and federal bankruptcy law is definitely something worth understanding deeply if you're doing distressed work.
Join the conversation
One more thing to consider - if you do decide to file a UCC-3 amendment, make sure the debtor name matches exactly with your original UCC-1. Any discrepancy could create priority problems even if the collateral description is perfect. I learned this the hard way when a client got married and we used her new name on the amendment.
Name consistency is huge. We started using automated checking tools after a debtor name mismatch nearly cost us our security interest. Certana.ai caught several potential issues we would have missed manually.
Individual debtors are the worst for name changes. Corporate entities usually stay consistent, but people get married, divorced, change their legal names - it's a constant headache for UCC filings.
Thanks for all the detailed responses - this is really helpful. Just to clarify our situation: we're not financing the purchase of the new equipment, the borrower is acquiring it with their own funds and we're just taking it as additional collateral for the existing loan. So UCC 9332 PMSI doesn't apply to us. My main concern is whether that other equipment lender from 6 months ago might have PMSI priority over any of this new equipment if they financed its purchase. I'll run a comprehensive UCC search first to see what's actually on file and check if any existing liens claim PMSI status. Based on the discussion here, it sounds like filing separate UCC-1s for the new collateral might be the safer approach to avoid any priority confusion, even if it costs a bit more in filing fees. Better safe than sorry when it comes to security interests.
Smart approach! You're absolutely right to check for existing PMSI claims first - that other equipment lender could indeed have super-priority if they properly perfected a purchase money security interest in any of the new equipment. The separate UCC-1 strategy makes a lot of sense for your situation. It eliminates any ambiguity about priority dates and gives you clean documentation if you ever need to enforce your security interest. The extra filing fees are definitely worth the peace of mind, especially with intervening liens in the mix.
Join the conversation
Thanks everyone for the input on this 9-315 UCC situation. I'm feeling a lot more confident about our position now. Going to do some additional document review and case law research before we respond to the other lender's claims. Really appreciate the practical advice about checking debtor names and collateral description coverage - sometimes you get so focused on the complex 9-315 UCC analysis that you miss the basic issues.
Glad we could help! 9-315 UCC issues always seem overwhelming at first, but usually there's a clearer path forward once you work through the details.
Definitely let us know how it turns out. These 9-315 UCC transformation cases are always good learning experiences for everyone.
As someone newer to UCC work, this 9-315 discussion has been incredibly helpful to follow. I'm curious though - when you're dealing with these transformation issues, how do you practically document the chain from raw materials to finished goods? Is it enough to rely on the debtor's production records, or do you need independent verification of how materials flow through their manufacturing process? I imagine this documentation becomes crucial if you end up in litigation over 9-315 UCC priority claims.
Join the conversation
Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and file amendments for all the name discrepancies before doing my continuations. Going to check out that Certana service a couple people mentioned - seems like it could save me from future headaches by catching these issues upfront. Really appreciate the help navigating California's requirements.
Good luck with the amendments. The extra work upfront is worth avoiding lapsed security interests later.
Let us know how the Certana tool works out if you try it. Always looking for better ways to handle UCC compliance.
This thread is incredibly helpful - I'm new to UCC filings and had no idea debtor name formatting was this critical. Just started handling secured transactions at my firm and we have several California filings coming up. From what I'm reading, it sounds like the safest approach is to always pull fresh corporate records right before filing anything, even if the original documents are recent. The examples about periods, commas, and entity designations are eye-opening. One question: when you're doing the corporate records search, do you pull from the Secretary of State database directly or use a third-party service? Want to make sure I'm getting the most current and accurate information for name matching. Also curious about the Certana tool several people mentioned - seems like it could be a good safety net for someone still learning the ropes. Thanks for sharing all this practical knowledge!
Welcome to the UCC world! For corporate records searches, I always go directly to the Secretary of State database when possible - third-party services can sometimes lag behind on updates. Each state has their own business entity search portal, and for California you can use the Secretary of State's online database for the most current information. The Certana tool others mentioned does sound useful for catching discrepancies automatically. When you're starting out, having that extra layer of verification can definitely help avoid costly mistakes. The learning curve on UCC compliance is steep, but understanding debtor name requirements upfront will save you a lot of headaches down the road. Pro tip: keep a checklist of all the name matching requirements for each state you file in. They're not all the same, and what works in one jurisdiction might not work in another.
Great advice from @NightOwl42 about going directly to the Secretary of State databases. I'd also add that it's worth bookmarking the specific business entity search pages for states you file in regularly - some can be buried pretty deep in their websites. For California specifically, their business search is at bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov and shows the exact legal name as it appears on their records. I always copy and paste directly from there into my UCC forms to avoid any typing errors that could cause name mismatches. The state-by-state differences are huge. Delaware has different rules than California, and New York has its own quirks. Definitely keep that checklist @NightOwl42 mentioned - it'll become invaluable as you handle more multi-state deals.
Yuki Sato
Wait I'm confused - are you trying to get a copy of your existing UCC-1 or are you trying to verify what's in the public records? Because if you have your original filing documents you shouldn't need to pay for copies just to do an amendment.
0 coins
Yuki Sato
•Ah that makes sense. Yeah lenders are getting more careful about that stuff. Smart move by them actually.
0 coins
Carmen Ruiz
•Your lender is being smart. I've seen cases where people thought their UCC-1 was filed correctly but there were errors that didn't surface until they tried to enforce their security interest.
0 coins
Diez Ellis
Have you considered reaching out to a UCC filing service company? I used one last year when I was in a similar situation with equipment collateral changes. They often have bulk access to state databases and can pull UCC search reports much cheaper than going through individual state offices. The service I used charged $25 for a comprehensive search that included all active filings under our business name. Plus they gave me a summary report that made it really easy to compare against our current inventory. Might be worth getting quotes from a few different services before paying that $90 fee.
0 coins