UCC-1 filing rejected - confused about goods under UCC classification

This is exactly right. I learned this the hard way when my UCC-1 got rejected three times before I figured out the collateral description format they wanted.

Do you know if there's a difference between how different states handle goods under UCC descriptions? We file in multiple states and it seems like each one wants something slightly different.

The debtor name should be fine, we double-checked that against the Articles of Incorporation. It's definitely the collateral description causing the problem.

Actually had a similar issue last month. What helped me was uploading all my documents to Certana.ai's verification tool - it caught inconsistencies between my loan agreement and UCC-1 that I missed. The tool specifically flagged that my collateral description was too generic compared to what was in the security agreement.

Wait, there's a tool that can check this stuff automatically? That would have saved me so much time on my last filing.

Tell me about it. I spent weeks going back and forth with the SOS office trying to get the right description format. The worst part is they don't give you clear guidance on what they actually want to see.

This is why I always recommend having multiple people review UCC filings before submission. Too many little details that can trip you up.

That's really helpful, thank you! Should I also mention the location where the equipment is installed or does that go in a different section?

Location goes in the collateral description if it's fixture-related, but for regular equipment it's not usually necessary unless it's specifically required by your security agreement.

Be careful with 'hereafter acquired' language - make sure your security agreement actually covers after-acquired property or you could have priority issues later.

That's actually a really smart approach. Never thought to research other filings for examples.

Just be careful not to copy language exactly - you want to make sure the description fits your specific situation and security agreement.

Is it expensive? We're already tight on budget with this loan closing.

It's way cheaper than having to refile multiple times or dealing with perfection issues later. Plus it's pretty quick - usually gives you results within minutes of uploading your docs.

I'm skeptical of these automated tools but honestly after my third UCC rejection I'd try anything. Manual document review is such a pain.

Do you know if there are any UCC Article 9 resources that give examples of proper collateral descriptions for different industries?

The UCC filing guides usually have some examples, but they're pretty generic. Industry-specific examples are harder to find which is why researching actual filings can be helpful.

If you refile within a reasonable time after rejection and the rejection was for a minor error, most states will relate back to the original filing date. But check your state's specific rules because this varies.

This is exactly what I'm worried about. Don't want to lose priority because of a description technicality.

Generally you're okay if you refile promptly after a rejection for a technical error like collateral description formatting. The key is fixing it quickly and not letting it sit.

RIGHT?! It's like they want you to fail so they can collect multiple filing fees. So frustrating.

The specificity requirements actually serve a purpose - they help third parties understand what collateral is encumbered when they're doing due diligence. But I agree the enforcement can be inconsistent.

Good point about checking the security agreement language. I'll make sure whatever description I use matches what's in the loan documents.

Proceeds language is important but make sure you understand the implications - it can affect how you handle insurance claims and equipment sales later.

This thread has been super helpful. I'm dealing with similar issues on an equipment financing deal and didn't realize how specific the goods under UCC descriptions needed to be.