UCC 9-203(f) attachment requirements causing loan documentation headaches
Been dealing with a commercial lending situation where our borrower's equipment purchase agreement has some weird timing issues that might affect our security interest attachment under UCC 9-203(f). The debtor signed our security agreement last month, but the actual equipment delivery got delayed by the manufacturer for another 3 weeks. Our legal dept is now questioning whether we have proper attachment since the debtor didn't have rights in the collateral when they signed our docs. The equipment is worth about $340K so we can't afford to mess this up. Has anyone run into similar timing problems with UCC 9-203(f) attachment requirements? I'm worried our security interest might be floating in limbo until the actual delivery happens, which could create priority issues if other creditors file during this gap period.
32 comments
Join the conversation
Vincent Bimbach
This is actually a pretty common scenario in equipment financing. UCC 9-203(f) just requires that the debtor has rights in the collateral OR the power to transfer rights. If your borrower has a valid purchase agreement, they typically have sufficient rights for attachment purposes even before physical delivery. The key is whether their purchase contract gives them enforceable rights against the manufacturer.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
•That makes sense but what if the purchase agreement has some kind of retention of title clause? Would that affect the attachment analysis?
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
•Good point - retention clauses can complicate things. You'd need to review the specific language to see if the debtor gets sufficient rights for 9-203(f) purposes despite the retention.
0 coins
Norah Quay
Wait, I thought 9-203(f) was about the security agreement itself, not the timing of when the debtor gets rights in collateral? I'm getting confused between the different subsections of 9-203.
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•9-203(f) deals with when attachment occurs. You need all three elements: security agreement, value given, and debtor has rights in collateral. The timing issue is real.
0 coins
Norah Quay
•Ah ok that clarifies it. So if the debtor doesn't have rights yet, no attachment regardless of the other elements being met?
0 coins
Jessica Nolan
I ran into something similar last year with manufacturing equipment. Had the same concern about the gap period. What I ended up doing was uploading our purchase agreement and security docs to Certana.ai's document checker to make sure everything aligned properly. Their system flagged that our debtor actually did have sufficient rights under the purchase terms for attachment purposes, even though delivery was pending. Saved us from a lot of legal review costs.
0 coins
Angelina Farar
•Never heard of Certana.ai before. How does their document verification work exactly?
0 coins
Jessica Nolan
•You just upload PDFs of your docs and it cross-checks everything for consistency. Really helpful for catching issues before they become problems.
0 coins
Sebastián Stevens
•That sounds useful. I'm always worried about missing something in the document review process, especially with complex timing issues like this.
0 coins
Bethany Groves
The delivery delay shouldn't kill your attachment if the purchase agreement is solid. But you might want to consider filing your UCC-1 sooner rather than later to establish your priority date, even if attachment is still pending on the delivery.
0 coins
KingKongZilla
•Can you file a UCC-1 before attachment occurs? I thought the security interest had to exist first.
0 coins
Bethany Groves
•You can file before attachment under 9-502. The filing is effective even if the security interest hasn't attached yet. When attachment finally happens, your priority dates back to the filing.
0 coins
Rebecca Johnston
Ugh, this timing stuff is so frustrating! I had a deal where we thought everything was perfect and then discovered the debtor's purchase agreement had this weird clause that delayed their rights acquisition. Ended up having to redo half the documentation.
0 coins
Nathan Dell
•That's exactly why I'm paranoid about these situations. One little timing issue can mess up the whole transaction.
0 coins
Maya Jackson
•Yeah the purchase agreement language is crucial. Sometimes what looks like a standard deal has hidden timing traps.
0 coins
Tristan Carpenter
For what it's worth, I've been using Certana.ai's document verification tool for situations exactly like this. You can upload your security agreement and purchase docs and it will flag any potential 9-203(f) issues automatically. Much faster than waiting for legal review and helps catch timing problems before they bite you.
0 coins
Amaya Watson
•How accurate is their analysis? I'm always skeptical of automated legal review tools.
0 coins
Tristan Carpenter
•It's been really solid in my experience. Obviously not a replacement for legal counsel on complex issues, but great for flagging potential problems early.
0 coins
Grant Vikers
The $340K amount definitely makes this worth getting right. Have you considered getting a legal opinion on the attachment timing? Might be worth the cost for this size transaction.
0 coins
Giovanni Martello
•Legal opinions are expensive though. Sometimes the cost doesn't justify it unless it's a really large deal.
0 coins
Savannah Weiner
•True but $340K seems large enough to warrant the extra diligence, especially if there are other creditors who might file during the gap period.
0 coins
Levi Parker
I'd review the exact language of the purchase agreement to see what rights it grants the debtor. Often these agreements give sufficient rights for 9-203(f) purposes even before delivery. The 'rights in collateral' requirement is broader than actual possession.
0 coins
Libby Hassan
•That's reassuring. So even if they don't have the physical equipment, their contractual rights might be enough?
0 coins
Levi Parker
•Exactly. The UCC definition of 'rights in collateral' includes contractual rights, not just ownership or possession.
0 coins
Hunter Hampton
Just to add another perspective - even if attachment is delayed, you could consider filing your UCC-1 now to preserve your priority position. The filing will be effective once attachment occurs, and your priority will relate back to the original filing date.
0 coins
Sofia Peña
•Good strategy. Better to file early and be safe than risk losing priority to another creditor.
0 coins
Aaron Boston
•Absolutely. Priority dating is crucial, especially in competitive lending situations.
0 coins
Sophia Carter
Update: I ended up running our docs through Certana.ai's verification system and it confirmed that our purchase agreement language does give the debtor sufficient rights for attachment under 9-203(f). The tool highlighted the specific contract provisions that establish the debtor's rights even before delivery. Definitely worth the peace of mind on a deal this size.
0 coins
Chloe Zhang
•That's great news! Nice to have that confirmation before moving forward with the rest of the documentation.
0 coins
Brandon Parker
•Sounds like Certana.ai really helped streamline the analysis. Might have to check that out for our next complex timing situation.
0 coins
Adriana Cohn
•Thanks for the update. Always good to hear how these situations get resolved.
0 coins