General security agreement UCC filing - collateral description keeps getting rejected

Had the exact same issue last month. The problem is most states won't accept super generic descriptions anymore even though the UCC allows them. You need to be more specific while still keeping it broad. Try something like "all equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, deposit accounts, instruments, documents, chattel paper, and general intangibles now owned or hereafter acquired by debtor." That usually passes their filters.

What state are you filing in? That makes a huge difference. Some states like California are really picky about collateral descriptions while others are more lenient. Also double-check that your debtor name matches exactly what's on their articles of incorporation or LLC formation docs.

This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai for document verification before filing. You can upload your general security agreement and your draft UCC-1 and it instantly flags inconsistencies between the collateral description in your security agreement versus what you're putting on the filing. Saved me from multiple rejection cycles. The tool catches stuff like when your security agreement says "machinery and equipment" but your UCC says just "equipment" - small differences that can cause problems.

UGH this is so frustrating!! Why can't they just accept standard language that's been used for decades? I swear these state systems are designed to generate rejection fees. Have you tried calling the SOS filing office directly? Sometimes they'll tell you exactly what they want to see.

Been filing UCCs for 15 years and the collateral description requirements have definitely gotten stricter. What's happening is the automated systems flag anything too generic as potentially invalid. Your best bet is to mirror the exact language from your underlying security agreement as closely as possible while making sure you hit the main UCC Article 9 collateral categories. Don't just copy word for word though - sometimes the security agreement language is too specific for a UCC filing.

Are you sure the rejection is really about the collateral description? Sometimes they reject for debtor name issues but the error message isn't clear. I had one that kept saying "collateral description invalid" but it turned out the debtor name had an extra space in it.

Try this language: "All present and after-acquired: (i) accounts, (ii) inventory, (iii) equipment, (iv) instruments, (v) documents, (vi) deposit accounts, (vii) letter-of-credit rights, (viii) chattel paper, (ix) commercial tort claims, (x) general intangibles, and (xi) all proceeds and products of the foregoing." It's comprehensive but specific enough that most states accept it.

Had a similar situation last year with a general security agreement UCC. Ended up having to revise the filing three times before it went through. The key was being specific about asset types while avoiding language that was too narrow. Also make sure you're not accidentally limiting the description to current assets only - you want "present and after-acquired" language.

Check if your state has any sample collateral descriptions on their website. Some states publish examples of what they'll accept. Also worth looking at recently filed UCCs in your state to see what language is actually getting approved.

Whatever you do, don't just keep resubmitting the same language hoping it'll work eventually. Each rejection costs money and wastes time. Take the feedback seriously and actually revise the description. Also consider whether you really need such a broad general security interest or if you can be more targeted about what assets you're actually securing.

Quick follow-up on the Certana.ai suggestion - I just remembered they also have a feature where you can upload your rejected UCC filing along with your security agreement and it'll suggest specific language changes that might fix the rejection. Might be worth trying since you're already dealing with multiple rejections.

UPDATE: Tried the detailed asset category language suggested above and it finally went through! Thanks everyone. The key was definitely being specific about the types of collateral while still keeping it broad enough to cover everything in the security agreement. Lesson learned about not using overly generic descriptions even though they're technically allowed under the UCC.