UCC 9332 priority rule confusion - amendment vs new UCC-1 filing

This is correct. 9332 only comes into play when you're financing the actual purchase of the collateral. If you're just expanding your security interest to cover more assets, it's a different analysis entirely.

But what about the priority date? That's really what they're asking about - whether the amendment preserves the original filing date or creates a new priority position.

Wait, that doesn't sound right to me. I thought amendments to add collateral got the benefit of the original filing date as long as the collateral description was reasonably related?

You're both partially correct, but it depends on whether the new collateral falls within the scope of the original collateral description. If it does, you maintain priority. If it's genuinely additional collateral outside the original scope, then yes, priority dates from the amendment.

This is exactly why I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. Upload your original UCC-1 and the proposed amendment, and it flags whether the new collateral description creates priority risks. Saved me from a major mistake last month when I was expanding a filing.

Exactly. PMSI status requires very specific timing and circumstances. Most lenders who think they have PMSI actually don't because they missed some technical requirement.

The 20-day rule for equipment PMSI is brutal. I've seen so many deals lose super-priority because they filed on day 21.

That's probably the safest approach. Multiple UCC-1 filings might be redundant but at least you know exactly what your priority position is for each piece of collateral.

We do this too. Keep the original UCC-1 for the original collateral and file new ones for additional advances. Makes the priority analysis much cleaner.

Good point. The original poster should check whether that other equipment lender has PMSI in any of the new equipment being added. That would definitely complicate the priority analysis.

This is getting complicated. Maybe get a UCC search to see exactly what's on file and whether any of the existing liens claim PMSI status?

Absolutely. And check the dates on all existing filings to map out the priority timeline. You need to know what liens exist and when they were filed before deciding on amendment vs new filing.

Also review your original security agreement language. Sometimes the collateral description is broad enough that new equipment falls within the original scope, which preserves your priority date.

That's smart. I've seen lenders rush to file amendments when their original description already covered the new collateral. Always worth double-checking the existing language first.

How does that tool work exactly? Do you just upload the documents and it compares them?

Yes, you upload your UCC-1 and any related docs (security agreement, amendment drafts) and it checks for name consistency, collateral overlap, and potential priority issues. Much faster than manual review.

Agree. The priority analysis for amendments can get murky, especially when there are intervening liens. Sometimes the clean approach is worth the extra filing cost.

Plus if you're ever in litigation over priority, having separate UCC-1 filings makes the chronology much clearer for the court.

Good point. Some jurisdictions have developed their own interpretations of these priority rules that don't always match the model UCC provisions.

And some state filing systems make it easier to track priority with multiple UCC-1s versus amendments. Worth considering the practical aspects too.

Name consistency is huge. We started using automated checking tools after a debtor name mismatch nearly cost us our security interest. Certana.ai caught several potential issues we would have missed manually.

Individual debtors are the worst for name changes. Corporate entities usually stay consistent, but people get married, divorced, change their legal names - it's a constant headache for UCC filings.

Smart approach! You're absolutely right to check for existing PMSI claims first - that other equipment lender could indeed have super-priority if they properly perfected a purchase money security interest in any of the new equipment. The separate UCC-1 strategy makes a lot of sense for your situation. It eliminates any ambiguity about priority dates and gives you clean documentation if you ever need to enforce your security interest. The extra filing fees are definitely worth the peace of mind, especially with intervening liens in the mix.