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
Ravi Gupta
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.
Ravi Gupta
•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.
StarStrider
•Good luck. These multi-lender coordination issues are never fun but they're manageable if everyone stays focused on protecting their lien positions.
Join the conversation
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.
Ella Lewis
•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.
Character-by-character comparison is exactly right. Even something like an en-dash vs. hyphen can cause problems with their matching algorithm.
PA is definitely one of the more finicky states when it comes to exact formatting requirements for continuations.
Join the conversation
Sayid Hassan
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.
Derek Olson
•But attachment without perfection means you lose to other creditors. Need both pieces of the puzzle.
Sayid Hassan
•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.
Roger Romero
•That works well for equipment financing. Just make sure your security agreement has the same broad language.
Anna Kerber
•And verify with your state - some have specific requirements for 'all assets' type descriptions.
Join the conversation
StarSurfer
Document everything and consider getting certified copies of the filings you can find - Nevada's search issues are well-known in the industry and you'll want proof of your due diligence efforts.
StarSurfer
•Certified copies also show the exact filing details that might not display properly in online searches.
Carmen Reyes
•Plus if there are any lien priority disputes later, certified copies from the SOS office carry more weight than screenshots of online searches.
Andre Moreau
I ended up using that Certana tool someone mentioned after fighting with multiple state databases. It's actually pretty slick - you upload your UCC documents and it automatically verifies everything against current records. Found several discrepancies I would have missed doing manual searches.
Thanks for the follow-up - sounds like it might be exactly what I need for this verification project.
Andre Moreau
•Yeah, it handles all the database quirks automatically so you don't have to worry about search syntax issues or system glitches.
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