UCC Document Community

Quick question - does anyone know if there's a difference between describing goods as 'equipment' vs 'machinery'? I've been using them interchangeably but wondering if I should be more consistent.

The confusion around collateral descriptions is totally understandable - I went through the same thing when I started doing secured transactions work. Here's what helped me get clarity: The UCC 9-108 "reasonably identify" standard is actually quite forgiving for most commercial transactions. You can absolutely use broad category descriptions like "all equipment," "all inventory," or "all accounts receivable." The key is avoiding "supergeneric" descriptions like "all personal property" or "all assets" that don't give any meaningful guidance about what's covered. For your rejected filing, I'd bet money it was a debtor name issue rather than the collateral description - those error messages from filing systems can be really misleading. Your description of "all equipment, machinery, and fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired" should be perfectly acceptable under the UCC. The after-acquired property language is standard and necessary for most commercial deals. One practical tip: stick with the UCC's defined categories (equipment, inventory, accounts, etc.) rather than trying to get too creative with industry-specific terms. And remember, broader descriptions are often better because they reduce the need for amendments when the debtor acquires new collateral.

Thanks everyone - this has been incredibly helpful. Sounds like I need to do much more detailed analysis of the existing filings before making any decisions. Going to pull all the UCC-1s and really dig into the collateral descriptions. The PMSI option is interesting since we are financing new equipment acquisition. Will also explore whether subordination discussions make sense with the existing lenders.

One more thing to consider - make sure you understand the difference between a security interest in the equipment itself versus just the proceeds from its sale. I've seen cases where lenders thought they had priority in specific equipment but the earlier filing actually covered the proceeds too, which can complicate recovery strategies. Also, if this is equipment that might be easily moved or sold, consider whether you need additional protections like insurance requirements or location restrictions in your loan agreement, especially if you end up in a junior position.

Just want to echo what others said about document verification. I use Certana.ai to upload my purchase agreements and UCC filings to make sure everything matches up for PMSI purposes. Takes the guesswork out of whether the filings are done correctly.

One more thing to consider - if you have multiple pieces of equipment being financed, make sure each piece is properly identified in the PMSI filing. I've seen situations where a blanket description covered some equipment but not others, which created gaps in the PMSI protection. Also, if you're doing a lease-purchase arrangement rather than straight financing, the PMSI rules can be different, so definitely clarify with your lender what type of transaction structure they're using.

As someone new to UCC filings, this thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm working on my first secured transaction in Ohio and was getting overwhelmed by all the different fee structures I was seeing online. The $40 electronic/$50 paper breakdown makes it much clearer. One quick follow-up question - when you're doing the initial UCC search before filing, do you typically search under all variations of the debtor's name or just the exact legal name? I want to make sure I'm not missing any existing liens that might affect priority.

Good question! For UCC searches in Ohio, you should definitely search the exact legal name first - that's your primary search and most important for priority purposes. But I also recommend doing searches on common variations just to be thorough. Things like abbreviated forms (if they use "Corp" vs "Corporation"), variations in punctuation, or even common misspellings. Ohio's search system is pretty literal so "ABC Corporation" and "ABC Corp." might yield different results even if they're the same entity. The extra $15 per search adds up but it's usually worth it to avoid surprises later. Also make sure you're searching the correct entity type - LLC vs Corporation searches can return different results even with similar names.

Bottom line: for your $850K multi-equipment deal, blanket UCC is probably the way to go. Just make sure you have proper 'hereafter acquired' language, maintain detailed equipment records, and verify debtor name consistency across all documents. The administrative efficiency usually outweighs the potential complications.

One additional consideration with blanket UCCs - make sure your lender has clear policies on how they'll handle subordination requests. With $850K in collateral spread across multiple equipment types, you might get other lenders wanting to take junior liens on specific pieces. It's much easier to negotiate subordinations when you have individual UCCs rather than having to carve out exceptions from a blanket filing. Also, consider whether the borrower might need equipment-specific financing in the future (like dealer financing for trade-ins) - blanket UCCs can sometimes complicate those arrangements.