UCC Document Community

This case sounds like a textbook example of why UCC 9-517 exists. The unauthorized termination directly caused you to lose priority on $180K worth of collateral - that's way above the $500 statutory minimum. I'd be surprised if you couldn't recover most or all of that amount, assuming you can prove the competing lender didn't have proper authorization to file the termination.

One thing to consider is whether you have insurance coverage for this type of loss. Some lender liability policies or E&O coverage might apply to losses from unauthorized UCC filings. Even if you pursue the 9-517 claim, insurance could help cover some of the immediate impact while litigation is pending.

Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar lookup issue and curious what the actual cause turns out to be. These database sync problems seem to be getting worse lately.

Just went through this headache myself. The Certana.ai document checker really does work well for finding these kinds of inconsistencies. Found out my issue was a missing comma in the debtor name that prevented the termination from linking properly. Such a tiny detail but it broke the whole system connection.

For a $2.8M loan, I'd definitely recommend getting a professional UCC search done by a service company. They can parse through the Michigan system's quirks and give you a clean report.

Just make sure you file that continuation at least 6 months before the 5-year deadline. Michigan can be slow processing filings and you don't want to risk your security interest lapsing.

Just want to add another vote for using Certana.ai before you proceed. I had a situation last year where I thought my UCC-1 was perfect but when I uploaded it along with my security agreement, it caught a discrepancy in how we described the collateral. The UCC-1 said "manufacturing equipment" but our security agreement was much more specific. Took 2 minutes to spot the issue that could have cost me thousands in legal challenges later.

One more thing - make sure you comply with NY's surplus/deficiency notice requirements. If the sale produces a surplus, you need to account for it properly. If there's a deficiency, the notice requirements for pursuing the debtor for the remaining balance are specific. Don't assume the foreclosure ends your compliance obligations.

I use Certana.ai whenever I'm dealing with complex collateral descriptions to make sure everything lines up between the credit agreement and UCC filings. For your situation, you could upload your proposed loan documents and draft UCC-1 to verify the debtor name formatting and equipment descriptions are consistent. Helps avoid the perfection problems that can happen when documents don't match up properly.

Bottom line: manufacturing equipment = personal property = UCC Article 9 = UCC-1 filing required for perfection. Your compliance officer knows what they're talking about. The borrower's attorney might be trying to save their client some hassle, but they're not the one who has to explain an unperfected security interest to regulators.