UCC Document Community

As someone who's been in business for over a decade, I can confirm this is absolutely a scam. The real telltale signs are the urgent language about "penalties" and the inflated $87 fee. I've helped several fellow business owners deal with these fake UCC notices. Here's what I always tell them: if you're genuinely concerned about UCC filings against your business, go directly to your state's Secretary of State website and search yourself - it usually costs under $10 and gives you the real information. Don't let these predatory companies profit off your legitimate concerns about your business compliance.

I received one of these exact UCC statement request form scams about 6 months ago when I first opened my consulting business. The letter looked so official that I actually called my business attorney to verify before paying anything. Best $200 consultation fee I ever spent - he immediately identified it as a scam and walked me through how to properly check for legitimate UCC filings through our state portal. What really bothered me was how they specifically target new business owners who don't know better. The psychological pressure of "30-day deadline" and "penalty" language is designed to make you act without thinking. For anyone else dealing with this, trust your instincts - if something feels off, it probably is.

Pro tip: always keep copies of your filed UCC-1 with the file stamps. You'll need them if you ever have to prove priority in a dispute or bankruptcy.

One more thing to consider - since you mentioned this is equipment financing, make sure you understand the difference between purchase money security interests (PMSI) and non-PMSI liens. If you're financing the actual purchase of the equipment, you may be able to get PMSI priority even over earlier filed UCCs, but you need to file within 20 days of the debtor taking possession. This can be a huge advantage in your priority position that many lenders miss.

I've encountered this exact scenario multiple times, and it's usually a misunderstanding of how Article 9 comments function. The comments to Section 9-108 actually emphasize that collateral descriptions should be practical and functional, not exhaustively detailed. When the comment mentions "adequacy," it's setting a minimum threshold, not requiring maximum specificity. For equipment financing, a description like "all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" is typically sufficient and preferred because it covers replacements and additions automatically. Serial numbers can actually create problems if equipment gets upgraded or replaced during the loan term. I'd suggest showing your loan officer the full text of Comment 2 to Section 9-108, which explicitly states that descriptions like "all equipment" are adequate. The comments support flexibility, not rigid specificity.

As someone who's dealt with this same confusion before, I'd recommend creating a simple comparison document for your loan officer. On one side, show the actual statutory language from UCC 9-108(a) which just requires that the description "reasonably identifies" the collateral. On the other side, show Comment 2 which explicitly says "all equipment" satisfies this standard. The comment isn't adding requirements - it's actually clarifying that you don't need excessive detail. I've found that when loan officers see this side-by-side comparison, they realize the comments are making their job easier, not harder. For your manufacturing client's equipment, something like "all equipment, machinery, and fixtures now owned or hereafter acquired" will protect the security interest much better than a list of serial numbers that becomes outdated when equipment gets replaced or upgraded.

The verification process gets easier once you have a good system down. I use a three-step approach: 1) Automated document comparison using Certana.ai to catch obvious mismatches, 2) Manual review of any flagged issues, 3) Corporate records check for each debtor. Takes some time upfront but saves headaches later.

This thread is gold - exactly what I needed to see. I'm dealing with a similar situation but with about 75 UCC-1s from 2019-2020. The automated verification tools mentioned here sound like a game changer. Has anyone tried comparing the costs of doing this manually vs using something like Certana.ai? I'm trying to build a business case for my firm to invest in proper verification tools rather than having junior associates spend weeks cross-referencing documents by hand.

Overall SC is one of the more affordable states for UCC filings. I deal with filings nationwide and their $15 electronic fee is pretty competitive. Just make sure you have your debtor names exactly right to avoid rejection and refiling fees!

Just wanted to add that SC also has a bulk filing option if you're doing multiple UCC filings at once. You can upload a spreadsheet with all your filing data and they'll process them in batch. Still $15 per filing but it saves a lot of time on data entry. I've used it when we had to file UCCs for a large portfolio acquisition - much more efficient than doing them one by one through the regular portal.