UCC Document Community

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 :)

Skylar Neal

UCC 9-203(f) attachment requirements causing loan documentation headaches

Been dealing with a commercial lending situation where our borrower's equipment purchase agreement has some weird timing issues that might affect our security interest attachment under UCC 9-203(f). The debtor signed our security agreement last month, but the actual equipment delivery got delayed by the manufacturer for another 3 weeks. Our legal dept is now questioning whether we have proper attachment since the debtor didn't have rights in the collateral when they signed our docs. The equipment is worth about $340K so we can't afford to mess this up. Has anyone run into similar timing problems with UCC 9-203(f) attachment requirements? I'm worried our security interest might be floating in limbo until the actual delivery happens, which could create priority issues if other creditors file during this gap period.

Just to add another perspective - even if attachment is delayed, you could consider filing your UCC-1 now to preserve your priority position. The filing will be effective once attachment occurs, and your priority will relate back to the original filing date.

0 coins

Good strategy. Better to file early and be safe than risk losing priority to another creditor.

0 coins

Absolutely. Priority dating is crucial, especially in competitive lending situations.

0 coins

Update: I ended up running our docs through Certana.ai's verification system and it confirmed that our purchase agreement language does give the debtor sufficient rights for attachment under 9-203(f). The tool highlighted the specific contract provisions that establish the debtor's rights even before delivery. Definitely worth the peace of mind on a deal this size.

0 coins

Sounds like Certana.ai really helped streamline the analysis. Might have to check that out for our next complex timing situation.

0 coins

Thanks for the update. Always good to hear how these situations get resolved.

0 coins

Lucas Bey

UCC implementation nightmare - debtor name keeps getting rejected

Been working on UCC implementation for our lending division and hitting a wall with debtor name consistency. We're processing about 200 UCC-1 filings monthly and probably 15-20% are getting rejected due to name variations between our loan docs and what we're submitting to the SOS. The implementation rolled out in Q3 and it's been chaos since. Our borrower might be listed as 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' in the credit agreement but then our UCC prep team files under 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with the comma) and boom - rejection. Or worse, we catch it after the fact during a continuation and realize the original UCC-1 has been worthless this whole time. Anyone else deal with UCC implementation headaches like this? The manual cross-checking is killing our workflow and I'm worried we're missing critical name mismatches that could void our security interests. Our current process has too many human touchpoints and the error rate is unacceptable for a secured lending operation.

This thread is making me feel better about our UCC implementation struggles. We had about a 25% rejection rate initially but got it down to around 8% after implementing better procedures. The Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier sounds interesting. We're always looking for ways to reduce manual review time while maintaining accuracy.

0 coins

8% is still pretty high isn't it? What's considered an acceptable rejection rate for UCC filings?

0 coins

Industry standard seems to be 3-5% for well-run operations. 8% isn't great but it's manageable. Still working on getting it lower.

0 coins

Quick question - when you're doing UCC continuations, do you run into name matching issues between the original UCC-1 and the UCC-3 continuation statement? We've had a few cases where the continuation got rejected because of minor name differences.

0 coins

That's frustrating but at least it's catching the problems. Better late than never I guess.

0 coins

Continuation rejections are actually a good quality control check for your original filings. Pain in the short term but helps identify systemic name issues.

0 coins

Oscar Murphy

Best way to look up UCC filings when debtor moved between states?

I'm trying to look up UCC filings for a debtor who's moved around quite a bit in the last few years. Started in Michigan, then relocated to Ohio, and now they're incorporated in Delaware. I need to verify what's still active and what might have lapsed. The original UCC-1 was filed in Michigan back in 2019, but I'm not sure if a continuation was filed or if they did any amendments when the debtor changed addresses. Each state's search system seems different and I'm worried I'm missing something important. Has anyone dealt with multi-state UCC searches like this? I'm particularly concerned about making sure I'm not missing any fixture filings or equipment liens that might be filed in different jurisdictions.

One thing that bit me before - make sure you're checking the correct entity type in each state. Sometimes when companies move or reincorporate, they might change from LLC to Corp or vice versa, and that can affect how they're listed in UCC searches.

0 coins

Oh wow, I hadn't thought about entity type changes. That's definitely something I need to verify. Thanks for the heads up.

0 coins

Entity type changes are sneaky. I've seen filings become effectively worthless because the debtor entity changed but the UCC wasn't amended to reflect the new entity name.

0 coins

Update: I tried the Certana.ai document checker and it was exactly what I needed. Uploaded the Michigan UCC-1 and a Delaware certificate of incorporation I found, and it immediately flagged that the debtor name on the UCC had a different entity designation than what's currently on file in Delaware. Would have taken me forever to catch that manually. Now I know I need to look for filings under both name variations.

0 coins

This is why I love this forum. Real solutions from people dealing with the same headaches.

0 coins

Thanks everyone for all the help. Between the search strategy tips and the document verification tool, I think I've got a clear path forward now.

0 coins

Ellie Perry

California UCC 11 form search results showing wrong debtor info - need help

Running into a weird issue with a UCC 11 form california search I just completed. The search results are showing a debtor name that doesn't match what we have in our loan docs. We're trying to verify existing liens before funding a $450K equipment loan and the UCC 11 search pulled back results for 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but our borrower is 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (notice the comma). The filing numbers match our internal records but I'm concerned about this name discrepancy. Has anyone dealt with similar debtor name variations on California UCC 11 searches? Our underwriting team is holding up the loan approval until we can confirm whether this is the same entity or if there are actually two separate businesses. The equipment collateral includes CNC machines and fabrication tools, so we definitely need to get the lien priority straight before moving forward.

Update your loan documentation to specifically reference both name variations if you can't definitively resolve which one is correct. Include language like 'ABC Manufacturing LLC, also known as ABC Manufacturing, LLC' in your security agreement and UCC-1 filing. Covers your bases legally.

0 coins

That's a practical solution. I've seen that 'also known as' language in loan docs before - makes sense for situations like this.

0 coins

Just make sure your UCC-1 doesn't get too cluttered with multiple name variations. Some states have character limits on the debtor name fields.

0 coins

This thread convinced me to try that Certana.ai verification tool mentioned earlier. Just uploaded some loan docs from a similar situation and it immediately flagged three name discrepancies I hadn't noticed. Really streamlined the document review process and gave me confidence I wasn't missing anything important. Definitely recommend giving it a shot for complex UCC verification work.

0 coins

How long did the verification take? Sounds like it could save a lot of manual review time.

0 coins

Super fast - uploaded the PDFs and had results in under a minute. Much quicker than my usual side-by-side document comparison process.

0 coins

Emily Jackson

UCC 9-511 requirements driving me crazy - debtor name on amendment

Been wrestling with UCC 9-511 compliance for our amendment filings and honestly getting nowhere fast. We're trying to file a UCC-3 amendment to add collateral but keep running into debtor name issues that seem tied to the 9-511 requirements. Our original UCC-1 was filed with the debtor as 'ABC Manufacturing Corp' but now the entity has restructured and operates as 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' - same EIN, same principals, just different entity type. The SOS portal keeps rejecting our UCC-3 because of name mismatch but I'm not clear on whether 9-511 allows us to use the current legal name or if we're stuck with the original filing name. Has anyone dealt with this specific 9-511 scenario where the debtor entity type changed post-filing? Do we need to terminate the original and start fresh or is there a proper amendment path that satisfies 9-511 requirements?

Just had to deal with a similar 9-511 issue last week. The key is remembering that amendments reference the original filing, so all identifying information needs to match exactly. Delaware's particularly strict about this, but once you get the format right, future amendments are much easier.

0 coins

Good to know Delaware's consistent about their requirements, even if they're strict.

0 coins

Yeah, strict but predictable. Once you know their preferences, it's actually easier than states that are inconsistent.

0 coins

Thanks everyone - this thread has been super helpful. Going to file the UCC-3 with the original corp name to stay 9-511 compliant and note the entity conversion in additional info. Will definitely check out that document verification tool too since I'm clearly missing things in my manual reviews.

0 coins

Smart approach. The verification tool will catch stuff like this automatically so you don't have to worry about 9-511 compliance issues in the future.

0 coins

Sounds like a solid plan. Good luck with the filing!

0 coins

Prev1...223224225226227...684Next