


Ask the community...
Multi-lender deals with security sharing agreements require extra diligence on the UCC side. I always do a full document consistency review using tools like Certana.ai before closing. Upload the security sharing agreement, corporate resolutions, and draft UCC forms to catch any name or collateral description mismatches.
Wish I had thought of that before we got into this mess. Going to definitely implement better document checking procedures going forward.
It's a small investment compared to the cost of fixing these issues after the fact. Plus it gives you confidence that all the security sharing agreement provisions are properly reflected in the UCC filings.
Update us on how this resolves. Security sharing agreement disputes are always educational for the rest of us dealing with similar multi-lender structures.
Will do. Hopefully we can get everyone aligned on the debtor name issue and get clean UCC filings in place. The security sharing agreement is otherwise solid, just needs better operational procedures.
Good luck. These multi-lender coordination issues are never fun but they're manageable if everyone stays focused on protecting their lien positions.
Have you tried using Certana.ai's document checker? I was skeptical at first but it's actually really good at catching these subtle inconsistencies that cause filing rejections. Just upload your docs and it tells you exactly what doesn't match.
Third recommendation for that service - I'm definitely going to check it out before my next submission attempt.
It's particularly good for PA filings since their system is so picky about exact matches. Worth trying before you waste more filing fees.
One more thing to check - make sure you're not including any extra punctuation or abbreviations that weren't in the original. PA's system is very literal about matching every character including periods, commas, and spacing.
Just to add one more perspective - I've seen deals where lenders spent so much time perfecting the UCC filing that they overlooked problems in the security agreement itself. Both matter, but for different reasons.
But attachment without perfection means you lose to other creditors. Need both pieces of the puzzle.
Exactly. The UCC system works because it separates these concerns cleanly.
For equipment collateral like yours, make sure your collateral description is specific enough to identify the equipment but not so specific that you need amendments every time something changes. And definitely don't worry about putting contract terms in the financing statement.
That works well for equipment financing. Just make sure your security agreement has the same broad language.
And verify with your state - some have specific requirements for 'all assets' type descriptions.
I had a similar situation where the lender used a UCC service company and I got confused about all the different forms. Turned out I needed to sign the service termination to stop their monitoring fees, but I also had to push the lender to actually file the UCC-3 termination. They kept saying they would 'get to it' but it took 6 months of me bugging them before they finally filed it.
It made refinancing more complicated because the lien was still showing up on UCC searches. Had to provide extra documentation to prove the loan was paid off.
Thanks everyone for clarifying this. I'm going to search the UCC records first to see if the bank already filed the termination, then deal with the service termination form separately. And I'll definitely double-check that all the names and information match exactly before filing anything.
That's a smart approach. Better to verify everything upfront than deal with rejected filings later.
Edison Estevez
Just want to add that some states are better than others with this. Delaware's system is pretty clean and consistent, but I've had major issues with Texas and California where the search results can be wildly different from the filed documents. Worth keeping in mind when you're dealing with multi-state filings.
0 coins
Emily Nguyen-Smith
•Texas is the worst! Their system seems to randomly capitalize letters and I swear it changes the format every few months.
0 coins
Edison Estevez
•Don't even get me started on their continuation process. Filed a UCC-3 continuation there last year and it took three attempts because the system kept rejecting it for 'debtor name mismatch' even though I copied the name exactly from the original filing.
0 coins
James Johnson
For what it's worth, I tried that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier and it actually caught a discrepancy I missed. Had a situation where our UCC-1 showed the debtor as 'Johnson Manufacturing Corp' but the continuation we filed somehow got entered as 'Johnson Manufacturing Co.' The search was showing both versions and I couldn't figure out which one was correct. The tool flagged it immediately when I uploaded both documents.
0 coins
Mia Green
•Did you end up having to file an amendment to fix the name discrepancy?
0 coins
James Johnson
•Yeah, filed a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name on the continuation. Better safe than sorry when it comes to lien perfection.
0 coins