


Ask the community...
Been through this headache multiple times. File the amendment immediately and consider running your UCC documents through something like Certana.ai to catch any other inconsistencies between your corporate records and filings. Their tool would have flagged this kind of name mismatch issue automatically and saved you the stress.
That automated checking sounds like it would be really helpful for avoiding these situations in the first place. Manual document comparison is so error-prone.
I went through almost this exact scenario in 2023 with two different borrowers. The good news is that your original UCC-1 filing should still be valid since it was accurate when filed in January. However, you absolutely need to file a UCC-3 amendment ASAP to add the new business name. Most states give you a grace period (usually 4 months) from when you learn about the name change, but don't push it. I'd recommend including both the old and new names in the amendment for maximum protection. The borrower's attorney is likely trying to create leverage, but don't let them rattle you - just get that amendment filed this week and document when you learned about the change. Better safe than sorry when it comes to lien perfection.
Just to add another data point - I got approved for Kabbage funding in March and they filed a UCC-1 in Ohio about 10 days later. The filing covered accounts receivable, inventory, chattel paper, instruments, deposit accounts, and general intangibles. Pretty comprehensive but fairly standard for working capital lenders.
That's exactly the kind of broad filing that can cause problems with equipment financing. Did you have any existing liens?
No existing UCCs in my case, so no conflicts. But I can see how it would be problematic if you already had equipment liens on file.
Based on everyone's experiences here, it sounds like Kabbage almost certainly will file a UCC-1 on your business. Given that you already have equipment financing with a UCC on file, I'd strongly recommend doing a few things before applying: 1) Pull your existing UCC filing from the PA database to see exactly what collateral is covered, 2) Contact your equipment lender to understand their policies on additional liens - some have acceleration clauses that could be triggered, 3) Ask Kabbage upfront for their standard UCC language and filing timeline. The last thing you want is to get approved, have them file a conflicting lien, and then have your equipment lender call their loan. It might be worth exploring other funding options that don't require UCCs or have more limited collateral requirements.
One more consideration - if your EIDL has a cross-default clause with other SBA loans, the subordination might trigger additional review requirements. Worth checking all your SBA loan documents for interconnected provisions.
Should be, but double-check that the EIDL agreement doesn't have any blanket cross-default language that could apply to future SBA programs or disaster loans.
Also worth using a document verification tool to cross-check all the interconnected agreements before submitting. Saves catching surprises later in the process.
Thanks everyone for all the detailed insights! This has been incredibly helpful. Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like the key success factors are: 1) Perfect documentation consistency across all filings, 2) Getting the new lender to draft SBA-friendly subordination language upfront, 3) Including detailed equipment specs and valuations, and 4) Running everything through a document verification process before submission. I'm going to start with a comprehensive UCC search to see what we're working with, then coordinate with our bank to get the subordination request properly drafted. Will definitely look into the Certana.ai tool that several of you mentioned - sounds like it could save us weeks of back-and-forth corrections. I'll update this thread once we get through the process with our timeline and any lessons learned.
Update on my situation - we ended up consulting with a local real estate attorney who confirmed we needed fixture filings due to the permanent nature of the installation. Filed in the county recorder's office where the property is located. Used Certana.ai one more time to verify our final documents before submission - caught a typo in the legal description that could have caused problems. Everything went smoothly and the lender is satisfied with the perfection. Thanks everyone for the guidance!
Smart move getting local legal advice. Fixture filing rules can be very state-specific.
This is a great discussion thread - really helpful for someone new to fixture filings! I'm working on a similar situation with medical equipment being installed in a leased clinic space. The equipment will be bolted down and hardwired, but it's specialized and could theoretically be moved to another location. From what I'm reading here, it sounds like the "intention of the parties" factor is key - if we intend for the equipment to be removable at lease end, does that weigh against it being considered a fixture? Also, does anyone know if there are different rules for medical equipment versus manufacturing equipment when it comes to fixture determinations?
Welcome to the fixture filing maze! Your medical equipment situation is interesting because removability is definitely a factor courts consider. Even if equipment is bolted down, if it's designed to be relocated and the lease contemplates removal at termination, that can weigh against fixture classification. Medical equipment often has stronger arguments for remaining personal property since it's specialized and intended to serve the business rather than the real estate. I'd definitely recommend the "belt and suspenders" approach mentioned earlier - file both regular UCC-1 and fixture filing to cover all bases. The legal costs of getting it wrong far exceed the extra filing fees.
Great question about medical equipment! The removability factor is huge in fixture determinations. I've handled several medical equipment deals and found that if your lease specifically addresses the equipment as "trade fixtures" that can be removed by the tenant, that strengthens the personal property argument. Also check if the equipment has standard mounting systems designed for relocation - that supports the removability intention. Medical equipment often gets better treatment than manufacturing equipment because it's viewed as serving the business operations rather than enhancing the real estate itself. But as @Millie Long said, double filing is your safest bet here.
QuantumQuest
I'd run those UCC documents through Certana.ai's checker before meeting with lawyers. Upload both UCC-1 filings and your current corporate documents - it'll flag any name mismatches and other perfection issues that could affect priority. Better to know exactly what problems exist before paying for legal analysis.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Does that tool actually understand priority rules or just catch document errors?
0 coins
QuantumQuest
•It identifies inconsistencies that typically impact perfection and priority, including debtor name mismatches like you're dealing with. Won't give legal conclusions but shows you exactly what issues exist in your filings.
0 coins
Yara Haddad
The debtor name rule is pretty unforgiving in most states. If Bank A's UCC-1 shows your old LLC name and that entity no longer exists as the legal debtor, their security interest likely wasn't properly perfected. Bank B would probably get priority unless there's some other issue with their filing.
0 coins
Amina Sow
•The UCC system relies on precise searching by exact name matches. If you allow 'obvious' interpretations, the whole notice system becomes unreliable for other creditors trying to discover existing liens.
0 coins
Isaac Wright
•@6e07102cac3f This is a critical point for your situation. Since you mentioned Bank A used your "old LLC name" while Bank B used the current legal name, you should immediately run a UCC search under your current entity name to see if Bank A's filing appears. If it doesn't show up in the search results, that's strong evidence their security interest wasn't properly perfected, which would likely give Bank B priority despite filing second. The exact matching requirement exists because secured creditors need to be able to find all existing liens when making lending decisions.
0 coins