UCC Document Community

Smart decision. Direct negotiation is almost always more effective than trying to preserve rights through UCC 1-308 notations.

Agreed. And don't forget to have all your documents reviewed for consistency before filing any UCC statements. Document alignment issues cause way more problems than most people realize.

Really appreciate this insight from the filing side! As someone new to commercial financing, this helps clarify why everyone here is steering away from UCC 1-308. Quick question - when you mention document consistency issues, are debtor name mismatches the biggest problem you see, or are there other critical alignment issues that commonly trip up filings? I want to make sure I'm not missing any obvious pitfalls as I prepare my documentation.

The most common issues I see are debtor name mismatches between the loan agreement and UCC-1, incorrect or incomplete collateral descriptions, and entity type discrepancies (like "ABC Corp" vs "ABC Corporation" vs "ABC Corp."). Address inconsistencies are also frequent problems - the debtor's address on the financing statement must match their principal place of business or chief executive office. I'd also recommend double-checking any parent/subsidiary relationships if you're dealing with corporate guarantors. These seem like small details but they can invalidate the entire security interest if not handled properly. The document verification tools mentioned earlier in this thread can catch most of these issues before filing.

Great point about timing! I'm curious - how far in advance should we start the UCC filing process? Our lender hasn't given us a specific timeline yet, but I want to make sure we're not scrambling at the last minute. Also, regarding the multiple locations issue, our machinery will be installed at our main facility but we might need to move some pieces to a secondary location later. Should we mention both addresses in the initial filing or handle that with an amendment later?

For timing, I'd recommend starting the UCC filing process at least 5-7 business days before your funding deadline. While electronic filings in CA are usually processed within 24-48 hours, you want buffer time for any rejection corrections or name verification issues. Regarding multiple locations, you have a couple options: you can file with a general description like "equipment located at debtor's facilities" or list specific addresses. If you know you'll be moving equipment between locations, the broader description might save you from filing amendments later. Just make sure your lender is okay with the collateral description approach you choose.

This is really helpful advice about entity name verification! I hadn't thought about the Inc vs LLC issue but that makes total sense. Quick question - when you mention getting a UCC search done first, is that something the statement service typically includes or do we need to order that separately? And roughly what does a search cost? We want to be thorough but also mindful of costs adding up. Also, regarding the fixture filing distinction, how do we know if our machinery would be considered fixtures? It's industrial equipment that will be bolted down but could theoretically be removed and relocated.

This thread was super helpful for understanding the proceeds perfection rules. I had no idea about the 20-day automatic period or the importance of having 'proceeds' in the original collateral description.

Definitely learned a lot here too. Going to double-check our UCC-1 filings to make sure the collateral descriptions are comprehensive enough to cover proceeds from any future sales.

This is excellent advice about getting written confirmation on the final payoff amount. I'm new to UCC filings and didn't realize how many variables could affect the final debt calculation - interest, fees, escrow holds, etc. The gap between the $180K original loan and $95K sale proceeds definitely suggests there might be additional payments or other collateral involved. Better to ask too many questions upfront than deal with complications later!

Great suggestion. I'm going to ask about that when we meet with them tomorrow.

This is excellent advice. The SBA specialists know all the quirks and requirements that trip up regular commercial lenders.

This is exactly the kind of proactive approach I wish I'd taken from the start. The "we'll handle everything" line from banks sounds reassuring but clearly isn't always reliable for SBA UCCs. Did you have any pushback from the bank when you asked to review the draft filing beforehand?

Actually had quite a bit of pushback initially - they acted like I was questioning their expertise. But when I explained that I'd heard about SBA UCC rejections causing major closing delays, they became more cooperative. I think the key was framing it as "wanting to avoid any potential issues" rather than "I don't trust you." Once they saw I was serious about the timeline, they were willing to show me the draft. Definitely worth standing firm on this - it's your deal and your closing at risk.

From my experience, Quebec is probably the most challenging since they use the Civil Code system rather than common law like the other provinces. Their security registration is completely different - they use the RDPRM (Registre des droits personnels et réels mobiliers) instead of PPSA. The concepts and terminology are quite different from both UCC and PPSA systems. Saskatchewan can also be tricky because they have some unique agricultural collateral provisions that don't exist in other provinces. For standard equipment and inventory though, Ontario and Alberta are probably the most straightforward if you're coming from a UCC background.

This is really helpful context about Quebec's system. I'm curious about the documentation differences you mentioned - when you say the underlying security agreement structures can vary, are you talking about fundamental differences in how the security is created and described, or more about terminology and formatting? We're used to adapting our standard security agreement templates for different states' UCC variations, but it sounds like Quebec might require a more substantial rethink of the documentation approach.