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 thing to consider - if your supporting obligations include things like accounts receivable from maintenance contracts or insurance proceeds, those might need separate treatment as proceeds rather than supporting obligations. The classification can affect perfection requirements.
Insurance proceeds are typically covered under proceeds provisions rather than supporting obligations. Most standard UCC filings include proceeds language that would cover insurance payments automatically.
Yes, proceeds are usually covered separately. Your UCC should have language like 'together with all proceeds, products, and accessions thereof' which would pick up insurance money.
Thanks everyone for this discussion. I feel much more confident about handling supporting obligations in my UCC filings now. Going to revise my standard forms to be more explicit about these types of obligations.
Glad this was helpful! If you're revising your standard forms, definitely consider using a document verification tool like Certana.ai to double-check that your new language properly aligns with your security agreements. It's saved me from several potential perfection gaps.
Great suggestion. I'm definitely going to look into that verification tool before I file this UCC. Better to catch any issues upfront than deal with problems later.
Join the conversation
This thread is making me nervous about my own Colorado filings. Going to double-check everything now to make sure our UCC search reports are actually complete.
Smart move. Better to be paranoid about lien searches than miss something important.
Exactly. Missing a prior lien because of search system problems could be catastrophic for a secured lender.
For what it's worth, I ended up calling Colorado SOS UCC department at 303-894-2200 and they were able to confirm my filing over the phone while their search system was acting up. Might be worth trying if you need immediate verification.
Good idea. Sometimes the old-fashioned phone call is more reliable than their online systems.
Just make sure to get the name and confirmation number of whoever you speak with for your records.
Join the conversation
Just went through UCC authorization review with our legal team last month. They confirmed that security agreement authorization is sufficient as long as it's clear and the debtor actually signed it. Sounds like you have both covered.
That's very helpful confirmation. Did your legal team recommend any specific language for future security agreements?
They suggested being very explicit about UCC filing rights but said our current language was already adequate.
For what it's worth, I've never seen a court invalidate a UCC filing over authorization issues when there was a properly signed security agreement with filing rights language. The debtor's attorney is probably just creating noise to improve their negotiating position.
Thanks for that perspective. It's good to know this isn't typically a winning argument for debtors in court.
Courts are generally protective of secured creditor rights when the documentation is proper. Don't let intimidation tactics work.
Join the conversation
This reminds me of when I was trying to file a UCC-3 continuation in Iowa and kept getting rejections. Turned out I was using the wrong filing number format - they wanted the full number including the year prefix. Maybe check if you're using any reference numbers or filing codes incorrectly?
This is an initial UCC-1 so there shouldn't be any reference numbers needed. But good to know about the filing number format for future amendments.
Right, for UCC-1s you wouldn't need that. But Iowa is just really particular about formatting in general. Even small details can cause rejections.
Final thought - try calling Iowa SOS UCC division directly at their dedicated line. I know it's a pain to wait on hold but they can often spot the issue immediately when they review your filing details over the phone. Much faster than the back-and-forth rejection process.
Good plan. Hope you get it sorted out soon - financing deadlines are stressful enough without portal problems adding to it.
Keep us posted on what ends up working! Always good to know what fixes Iowa filing issues for future reference.
Fatima Al-Maktoum
One more thing - check the timing of your searches. UCC filings can take time to appear in the databases after they're filed, and some states are slower than others to update their systems. You might want to do a final search right before closing to catch any last-minute filings.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Some states can take several days to update their databases. It's always good practice to do a final search within 24-48 hours of closing.
0 coins
Carmen Diaz
•I always tell clients about the timing issue upfront so they understand why we need to do multiple searches throughout the due diligence period.
0 coins
Dylan Mitchell
Just wanted to add that I've also used Certana's verification tool for multi-state searches and it really helps catch the inconsistencies. The automated cross-checking saved me probably 20 hours of manual comparison work on my last big deal.
0 coins
Ethan Wilson
•That time savings alone sounds worth it. Manual cross-checking between 8 states worth of filings would take forever.
0 coins
Mei Zhang
•Automation is the future for this kind of work. Too easy to make mistakes when you're comparing documents manually across multiple states.
0 coins