UCC 9-102(a) definition confusion - debtor name vs secured party requirements
Been wrestling with UCC 9-102(a) definitions for weeks now and I'm honestly lost. Working on a complex asset-based lending deal where we've got multiple entities involved and I can't figure out if we're classifying the debtor correctly under the statutory definitions. The borrower is a Delaware LLC but operates through several subsidiaries, and I'm not sure if we need separate UCC-1 filings for each entity or if the parent company filing covers everything. The collateral includes both equipment and inventory across multiple locations. I've read section 9-102(a) about twenty times but the definitions seem to overlap in ways that don't make sense for our situation. Anyone dealt with similar multi-entity scenarios under these definitions? Really need to get this right because the loan closes next week and I don't want to mess up the perfection.
40 comments
Join the conversation
Olivia Kay
UCC 9-102(a) can be tricky with multi-entity structures. The key is identifying who actually owns the collateral - that's your debtor for UCC purposes. If the subsidiaries own their own assets, you'll need separate filings. The parent company filing won't automatically cover subsidiary-owned collateral.
0 coins
Joshua Hellan
•This is exactly right. I learned this the hard way when a lender tried to claim our parent company UCC covered subsidiary equipment. Didn't hold up.
0 coins
Jibriel Kohn
•Wait, what if the parent company has guarantees from the subsidiaries? Does that change anything for the UCC filings?
0 coins
Edison Estevez
Been there! The 9-102(a) definitions are honestly written in the most confusing way possible. For your multi-entity deal, you need to look at who has title to each piece of collateral. Don't assume anything - check the ownership docs for every asset. I usually create a spreadsheet mapping each piece of collateral to the actual owner entity.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•That's a great approach. I started doing something similar but wasn't sure if I was overcomplicating it. Sounds like the detail work is necessary.
0 coins
Emily Nguyen-Smith
•Spreadsheets are your friend here. Also double-check that your entity names match EXACTLY what's on the state records. One wrong letter and your filing could be ineffective.
0 coins
James Johnson
Just went through this exact scenario last month. Had a client with a parent LLC and three subsidiaries. Turns out we needed four separate UCC-1 filings because each entity owned different collateral. What saved me was using Certana.ai's document verification tool - I uploaded all the entity formation docs and UCC drafts, and it caught two debtor name mismatches I would have missed. Really streamlined the whole process.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•That sounds incredibly useful. How does the verification tool work exactly? I'm drowning in entity documents right now.
0 coins
James Johnson
•Super simple - you just upload PDFs of your charter docs and UCC forms, and it automatically cross-checks all the entity names and details. Takes like 5 minutes and catches inconsistencies immediately.
0 coins
Sophia Rodriguez
•Never heard of Certana.ai before but this sounds like exactly what I need. Tired of manually comparing documents for name consistency.
0 coins
Mia Green
ugh the UCC definitions are THE WORST. i swear they wrote 9-102(a) just to confuse people. anyway for your deal - if the subsidiaries are just doing business as the parent company that might be different than if they actually own the assets. you really need to check the corporate structure and asset ownership
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•The subsidiaries do own their own assets unfortunately. Looks like I'm doing multiple filings.
0 coins
Mia Green
•yeah that's gonna be separate filings then. make sure you get the entity names perfect or you'll be back to square one
0 coins
Emma Bianchi
The 9-102(a) definitions become clearer when you focus on the practical question: who can grant a security interest? Only the owner of the collateral can grant a valid security interest. So if Subsidiary A owns Equipment X, only Subsidiary A can be the debtor on a UCC filing covering Equipment X. The parent company can't grant a security interest in assets it doesn't own.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•That's a really helpful way to think about it. Makes the whole definition section more practical.
0 coins
Lucas Kowalski
•Exactly. The definitions support this basic principle - only the actual owner/debtor can grant security interests in their collateral.
0 coins
Jibriel Kohn
•But what about when there are operating agreements that blur the ownership lines? I've seen some LLCs where it's not clear who technically owns what.
0 coins
Olivia Martinez
OH MY GOD YES. I've been pulling my hair out over UCC 9-102(a) definitions too. The whole section reads like it was written by lawyers who hate normal people. For multi-entity deals I've learned to just assume I need separate filings for each entity unless I can prove otherwise. Better safe than sorry.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•That's probably the safest approach. My paranoia is definitely leaning toward over-filing rather than under-filing.
0 coins
Olivia Martinez
•over-filing never hurt anyone. under-filing can kill your deal. especially with the definitions being so confusing
0 coins
Charlie Yang
I handle a lot of multi-entity asset-based lending and the 9-102(a) definitions trip people up constantly. Here's what I do: 1) Get org charts for all entities 2) Get a detailed collateral list with current owner for each asset 3) Map each piece of collateral to the owning entity 4) File separate UCC-1s for each debtor entity. Don't try to get clever with one filing covering multiple entities - it rarely works.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•This is exactly the systematic approach I needed. Thank you for laying it out step by step.
0 coins
Charlie Yang
•No problem. I learned this process after getting burned on a deal where we tried to shortcut the entity analysis. Not worth the risk.
0 coins
Grace Patel
•Step 2 is critical - you really need that detailed ownership breakdown or you're just guessing about who owns what collateral.
0 coins
ApolloJackson
Had a similar situation last year and ended up using one of those document checking services. Certana.ai I think? Anyway, it was a lifesaver because it automatically flagged where my entity names didn't match between the corporate docs and the UCC forms. Saved me from filing incorrect debtors under the 9-102(a) definitions.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•Second mention of Certana.ai - seems like it's really helpful for this type of multi-entity verification work.
0 coins
ApolloJackson
•Yeah, especially when you're dealing with multiple entities and trying to make sure everything aligns properly. Takes the guesswork out of name matching.
0 coins
Isabella Russo
The 9-102(a) definitions are definitely dense but they're trying to cover every possible scenario. For your Delaware LLC situation, make sure you're using the exact legal name from the Delaware Secretary of State records. I've seen filings rejected because someone used a DBA name instead of the legal entity name.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•Good point about using the exact legal names. I'll double-check all the entity names against the state records.
0 coins
Isabella Russo
•Yes, and remember that Delaware is pretty strict about exact name matching. One wrong punctuation mark can cause problems.
0 coins
Rajiv Kumar
•Delaware filings are no joke. They reject stuff for the tiniest discrepancies in entity names.
0 coins
Aria Washington
Been dealing with UCC 9-102(a) definitions for years and honestly they never get easier to interpret. Your instinct to file separately for each entity is probably right. The definitions support the principle that each legal entity is a separate debtor, even in parent-subsidiary relationships.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•That's reassuring. I was worried I was overthinking it but sounds like separate filings are the way to go.
0 coins
Aria Washington
•Better to be thorough than to have a perfection problem later. The definitions are there to protect the filing system's integrity.
0 coins
Liam O'Reilly
Update: I ended up using Certana.ai's verification tool like some of you suggested and it was incredibly helpful. Uploaded all my entity formation documents and UCC-1 drafts, and it immediately caught three name inconsistencies I had missed. Filed four separate UCC-1s (one for the parent and one for each subsidiary) and everything went through perfectly. Thanks everyone for the guidance on interpreting 9-102(a) - turns out the systematic approach was exactly what I needed.
0 coins
Olivia Kay
•Glad it worked out! Sounds like you took the right approach with separate filings.
0 coins
James Johnson
•Nice to hear Certana.ai helped another person avoid filing mistakes. The document verification really makes a difference.
0 coins
Charlie Yang
•Perfect example of why systematic entity analysis is so important. Congrats on getting it all filed correctly.
0 coins
StarStrider
This is such a common pain point with multi-entity deals! I've been through this exact scenario multiple times. The key insight that helped me was realizing that 9-102(a) definitions are really about legal ownership, not operational control. Even if the parent company manages everything operationally, if the subsidiaries legally own the collateral, they need to be the debtors on separate UCC-1 filings. I learned this lesson when a client's single parent company filing was challenged because the subsidiaries actually held title to most of the equipment. Now I always start with a detailed asset ownership audit before drafting any UCC forms. It takes more time upfront but saves major headaches during due diligence or if there's ever a dispute about perfection.
0 coins
Ethan Clark
•This is exactly the kind of hard-learned lesson that saves everyone else from making the same mistake! The asset ownership audit approach makes so much sense - you're essentially mapping the legal reality before drafting anything. I'm definitely going to adopt this methodology for my own deals. It's interesting how operational control can be so misleading when it comes to UCC requirements under 9-102(a). Thanks for sharing your experience with the challenged filing - that's the kind of real-world example that really drives the point home.
0 coins