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
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.
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.
Hannah White
•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.
Kaiya Rivera
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.
Hannah White
•Thanks for that perspective. It's good to know this isn't typically a winning argument for debtors in court.
Kaiya Rivera
•Courts are generally protective of secured creditor rights when the documentation is proper. Don't let intimidation tactics work.
Join the conversation
Update on similar Vermont issue I had - ended up having to file amendment first, wait for confirmation, then file continuation. Took 3 weeks total but the lien stayed perfected. Vermont's pretty good about processing once you get the paperwork right.
Cass Green
•Three weeks?? I don't have that much time before lapse. Did you do expedited processing?
No expedited option for amendments unfortunately. But if you file before lapse date you should be okay even if processing takes time.
For what it's worth, I've found Vermont SOS staff pretty helpful if you call and explain the situation. They can sometimes suggest the best approach for your specific filing issue. Worth a try before paying for multiple filings.
Charlie Yang
•Their phone system is terrible though. Last time I called I was on hold for 45 minutes.
Grace Patel
•Try calling right when they open at 8am. Usually get through faster then.
Join the conversation
Have you considered reaching out to the Delaware SOS UCC office directly? Sometimes a phone call can clarify exactly what they're looking for. They might have examples of acceptable medical AR language they can share.
Lena Schultz
•Worth a try. Do they actually take calls about rejected filings or just refer you back to the written rejection notice?
Kai Santiago
•Hit or miss honestly. Some clerks are helpful, others just read you the same rejection reason. But might be worth the 10 minutes to try.
Lim Wong
UPDATE: Got it figured out! Used one of those document verification tools someone mentioned to cross-reference our filing against the debtor's charter and successful medical AR filings. The issue was actually two-fold - our AR description needed the specific insurance language AND our debtor name was missing 'Professional LLC' at the end. Third time's the charm - filing accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the help!
Great outcome. Which verification tool did you end up using? Always looking for better ways to catch these issues upfront.
Lim Wong
•Certana.ai - just uploaded our draft UCC-1 and the debtor's formation docs and it flagged both issues immediately. Wish I'd done that before the first two attempts!
Grace Johnson
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.
0 coins
Grace Johnson
•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.
0 coins
Lauren Johnson
•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.
0 coins
Jayden Reed
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.
0 coins
Caleb Stone
•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.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•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.
0 coins