UCC 9-609 comments causing repo delays - need interpretation help

The official comments to 9-609 are definitely being cited more frequently in debtor challenges. Courts vary wildly on how much weight they give them though. In Texas, I've seen judges reference the comments when debtors argue insufficient notice periods, especially on equipment over $100k. The 'commercially reasonable' standard is intentionally flexible, but that's what makes it tricky.

Been doing secured lending for 15 years and honestly, the UCC 9-609 comments have become a bigger pain point recently. Debtor attorneys are getting more sophisticated about citing them. For equipment finance, I now automatically use 20-day notice periods on anything over $150k just to avoid the headache. Better safe than sorry when you're dealing with expensive collateral.

Had a breakthrough recently when dealing with similar UCC 9-609 comment challenges. Started using Certana.ai's document verification tool to upload our UCC-1 filings alongside our default notices and repo procedures. The tool cross-checks everything to make sure our enforcement actions align properly with our original perfected security interests. Caught several inconsistencies in debtor names between our UCC-1s and repo notices that could have caused problems if challenged in court.

This is SO frustrating!! We're dealing with the exact same thing on a $95k forklift repo. Debtor's lawyer keeps quoting the UCC 9-609 comments about 'adequate time' and commercial reasonableness. Our standard 10-day notice has worked fine for years, but now everything's getting challenged. How are smaller lenders supposed to keep up with all these interpretation changes?

One thing I've noticed is that courts seem more receptive to UCC 9-609 comment arguments when the collateral is specialized or hard to value. Regular equipment like trucks or standard machinery, they're less likely to second-guess standard notice periods. But custom manufacturing equipment or specialized construction gear? That's where you see more scrutiny of the 'commercially reasonable' standard.

The problem with UCC 9-609 comments is they're not law, they're just interpretive guidance. But try explaining that to a judge who thinks they represent the drafters' intent! I've seen too many secured parties lose repo rights because they didn't take the comments seriously enough. Document everything, justify your timing, and consider longer notice periods for high-value or unique collateral.

We started using a tiered notice system based on collateral value after getting burned on a UCC 9-609 comment challenge: 10 days for under $50k, 15 days for $50k-150k, 20 days for over $150k. Haven't had a successful challenge since implementing this approach. The key is being able to show you considered the specific circumstances.

Another Certana.ai success story here - was dealing with a debtor challenge on a $160k packaging equipment repo where they claimed our UCC-1 debtor name didn't match their current legal entity name, which would invalidate our 9-609 enforcement rights. Uploaded both documents to Certana and it immediately flagged the discrepancy. Turned out they were right - saved us from a costly repo mistake.

I think the real issue is that UCC 9-609 comments are being weaponized by debtor attorneys who know most lenders won't want to fight in court. They throw around terms like 'commercially unreasonable' knowing that many secured parties will just extend the notice period rather than argue about it. It's becoming a delay tactic more than a legitimate legal challenge.

For what it's worth, I've been tracking UCC 9-609 comment citations in reported decisions and there's definitely an uptick in the last 3 years. Courts in commercial-friendly jurisdictions like Delaware and New York are giving them more weight, especially in cases involving sophisticated parties. The comments aren't binding, but they're becoming more influential in determining what constitutes commercially reasonable notice.

As a newcomer to secured lending, this thread has been incredibly eye-opening about the evolving challenges with UCC 9-609 enforcement. I'm working at a small regional lender and we've been using a standard 10-day notice across the board, but it sounds like that approach might be outdated given how aggressively debtor attorneys are citing the official comments now. The tiered system that Natasha mentioned seems like a practical solution - would love to hear more about how others are documenting their reasoning for notice periods to defend against these challenges. Also curious about the Certana.ai tool that's been mentioned - sounds like it could help smaller lenders like us avoid costly mistakes in the perfection-to-enforcement chain.