UCC 103.6 interpretation affecting our collateral description requirements

They claimed 'all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired by debtor' was too generic and didn't meet the reasonable identification standard. But that's been standard language for decades.

That's frustrating. The commentary suggests that type of description should still be acceptable under 103.6 as long as it reasonably identifies the collateral type.

Agreed. It feels like debtor counsel fishing for new defenses rather than legitimate 103.6 concerns.

Exactly. Most of these challenges seem more tactical than substantive when you look at the actual language requirements.

Interesting - does it specifically flag potential 103.6 reasonable identification issues in collateral descriptions?

Yes, it analyzes collateral descriptions against the reasonable identification standards and flags anything that might not meet current interpretation guidelines.

That sounds helpful for compliance review. Does it work with both UCC-1 and amendment filings?

The inconsistency is definitely a problem. That's why having verification tools becomes more important.

yeah but we shouldnt need special tools for basic collateral descriptions that have worked for years

That's what I thought too. The property was a manufacturing facility so the description seemed pretty clear about what equipment we were claiming.

In manufacturing contexts that description should definitely meet 103.6 standards. Sounds like debtor counsel being overly aggressive.

Manufacturing equipment at a specific facility is about as reasonably identified as you can get under any interpretation.

What kind of specific categories did you add? We're considering template updates too.

Things like 'manufacturing equipment, processing machinery, transportation equipment' instead of just 'equipment.' More descriptive but still broad enough for after-acquired property.

I think it's more about debtor counsel getting creative with challenges than actual problems with the descriptions.

Probably right. Just creates more work for everyone involved in the filing process.

Yes! The cross-checking between related filings is really valuable. Prevents those consistency issues that create perfection gaps.

Exactly. Upload both documents and it immediately flags any potential conflicts or inconsistencies.

UCC 103.6 applies to all collateral types, not just consumer goods. It's the general reasonable identification standard.

oh ok that makes more sense then. thanks for clarifying

That's probably what's happening here too. Good to know others have seen this tactic.

Yeah, definitely seems to be a trend in distressed situations where they're looking for any angle to challenge security interests.

Makes sense as a negotiating strategy even if the legal basis is weak.

That's reassuring. Do you have any resources that track these interpretation differences?

I maintain a spreadsheet based on reported cases and filing office guidance. Most are consistent with pre-revision standards.

Agreed. Prevention is definitely better than dealing with challenges after the fact.

Exactly. Upload your documents and get immediate feedback on potential 103.6 compliance issues before filing.