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
One more tip - when you refile, make sure you're using the most current version of the state's UCC1 form. Sometimes rejections happen because you're using an outdated form version, especially if you downloaded it months ago.
Good catch! I've been using the same form template for several filings. Better check for updates.
The forms get updated more often than you'd think. Always grab a fresh copy from the SOS website.
Following this thread because I have a similar filing coming up next month. Really helpful to see all the potential pitfalls before I make the same mistakes.
Smart to research first! These UCC1 issues are so preventable if you know what to watch out for.
Exactly. Better to learn from other people's mistakes than make them myself.
Join the conversation
Been there done that with priority disputes. UCC 9-320 is one of those sections that seems straightforward until you're in the middle of a fight about it. Document everything - loan proceeds, purchase dates, filing dates. The bankruptcy trustee will scrutinize every detail.
For future deals, consider using automated verification tools. I started using Certana.ai after a similar situation and it catches document inconsistencies that could affect priority claims.
Good advice. These priority disputes are expensive to litigate, so prevention is worth the investment.
Update: talked to our bankruptcy attorney and she confirmed the PMSI issue is the main problem. Since our loan proceeds didn't directly purchase the collateral we're claiming, we're probably just a regular secured creditor. Still fighting it but not optimistic about our priority position.
That's unfortunate but not surprising. PMSI rules are pretty strict about the proceeds going directly to acquire the collateral.
At least you know where you stand now. Better to find out during the case than after a judgment against you.
Join the conversation
Look, the bottom line is your UCC-1 establishes your security interest in the collateral. The inspection rights come from the UCC itself when contracts are silent. Your lien isn't going anywhere because of inspection clause wording. Tell the debtor's attorney to cite the specific UCC section that supports their argument - bet they can't.
Exactly. Most of these challenges fall apart when you ask for actual citations and precedent.
This is why I love working with lenders who understand UCC law. Makes it so much easier to call out frivolous challenges.
Final thought - if you're still worried, consider getting a UCC opinion letter from qualified counsel. Will cost a few thousand but gives you definitive protection against these kinds of challenges. Sometimes worth it for peace of mind on larger deals.
Not a bad idea for future deals. This one probably doesn't justify the expense but good to know the option exists.
Yeah, depends on deal size and risk tolerance. But can definitely shut down debtor attorney fishing expeditions.
Join the conversation
Just want to follow up on this thread since I'm dealing with similar volume issues in Ohio. Did you end up trying the XML upload route with Kentucky?
Awesome, definitely update this thread when you get that info. Could be useful for all of us doing high-volume filing.
Same here - would love to know how the XML route works out. Been thinking about it for my Delaware filings.
Chloe Harris
The timing aspect of your situation is really critical. If the name change happened recently, you're probably still within the four-month grace period and can maintain your original priority date by filing an amendment. But if it's been longer than four months, you need to shift your strategy to focus on which specific assets were acquired when, and whether the competing lender's filing actually covers the same collateral categories. Don't get overwhelmed by the complexity - just take it step by step and make the other lender prove their claims rather than accepting them at face value.
0 coins
Anastasia Popova
•True, and some states have different rules about when corporate changes become effective. You have to check the specific state law where the debtor is organized, not where the collateral is located.
0 coins
Sean Flanagan
•This whole thread is making me realize I need to be way more proactive about monitoring my debtors for name changes. Waiting until there's a competing lender is obviously too late.
0 coins
Zara Shah
UPDATE: I got the corporate records and the name change was effective 6 weeks ago, so I'm definitely within the four-month window. Filed the UCC-3 amendment this morning and I'm working on the detailed collateral analysis. Thanks everyone for the advice - this thread helped me understand that I'm not automatically screwed just because there's a competing lender. The 9-338 analysis is more nuanced than I initially thought. I'm also going to implement some kind of systematic monitoring going forward so I don't get caught off guard like this again. This was way too stressful for something that should have been preventable with better portfolio management.
0 coins
Nia Wilson
•Glad this worked out. For the monitoring piece, I'd recommend checking out Certana.ai's verification tool - you can set up regular checks to catch name mismatches before they become priority disputes. Much easier than trying to monitor everything manually.
0 coins
Mateo Martinez
•This whole discussion shows why the UCC 9-338 rules are both necessary and frustrating. They protect the integrity of the filing system but create these technical traps for secured parties who don't stay on top of every detail.
0 coins