UCC Filing Rejected Due to All Business Assets Collateral Description
My UCC-1 got kicked back yesterday and I'm honestly confused about what went wrong. I described the collateral as 'all business assets' which seemed reasonable since we're securing a $180K equipment line of credit that covers everything from our machinery to inventory to receivables. The rejection notice said something about 'insufficient collateral description' but isn't that standard language? I've seen other filings use similar wording. The debtor name matches exactly what's on the business registration, filing number is correct, and I double-checked everything else. This is holding up our financing and my client is getting antsy. Has anyone dealt with this specific rejection reason? Is there some magic formula for describing comprehensive collateral that I'm missing?
38 comments
Join the conversation
Mei Liu
Yeah, 'all business assets' is usually too vague for most filing offices. You need to be more specific about what categories you're actually securing. Think 'equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, general intangibles' - that kind of breakdown. The SOS wants to see that you actually know what you're filing against.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
•This exactly. I made the same mistake on my first few filings. Generic descriptions get rejected almost every time now.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•So I need to list out each category separately? Even if the intent is to secure everything?
0 coins
Mei Liu
•Yes, break it down by asset type. Much higher success rate that way.
0 coins
Amara Chukwu
Had this exact issue last month with a $220K filing. The problem is that blanket descriptions don't give third parties enough notice about what's actually encumbered. You want something like 'all equipment, machinery, inventory, accounts receivable, chattel paper, instruments, documents, deposit accounts, and general intangibles.' Be comprehensive but specific.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•That's way more detailed than what I had. Do I need to amend the original filing or start over completely?
0 coins
Amara Chukwu
•Since it was rejected, you'll need to file a new UCC-1 with the corrected collateral description. The original never got accepted into the system.
0 coins
Giovanni Conti
•Make sure you update your security agreement language to match whatever you put on the UCC-1. Consistency matters if you ever need to enforce.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Hashimi
I've been through this headache multiple times and finally found something that saves tons of time - there's a tool called Certana.ai that lets you upload your UCC documents and it checks for these kinds of issues before you file. You can upload your security agreement and proposed UCC-1 together and it flags description mismatches and vague language. Would have caught this collateral description problem immediately.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•Never heard of that but sounds useful. How does it work exactly?
0 coins
Fatima Al-Hashimi
•Just upload your PDFs and it automatically cross-checks everything. Caught three different issues on my last filing that would have caused rejections.
0 coins
NeonNova
•Interesting. I spend way too much time manually comparing documents. Might be worth checking out.
0 coins
Dylan Campbell
UGH this is so frustrating!! Why can't they just accept reasonable descriptions?? I had a filing rejected because I said 'business equipment' instead of 'equipment.' Like seriously, what's the difference?? The whole system is designed to trip people up.
0 coins
Amara Chukwu
•I get the frustration, but the specificity requirements exist for good legal reasons. Other creditors need to understand what's encumbered.
0 coins
Dylan Campbell
•Still seems unnecessarily picky to me. Common sense should count for something.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
What state are you filing in? Some are stricter than others about collateral descriptions. California is notorious for rejecting anything that sounds too broad.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•This was a Texas filing. Didn't realize there were state differences on this.
0 coins
Liam O'Sullivan
•Oh yeah, Texas has gotten much pickier in the last couple years. They want very detailed asset categories now.
0 coins
Sofia Hernandez
Been doing UCC filings for 15 years and the trend is definitely toward more specific descriptions. Courts have been rejecting vague collateral descriptions in disputes, so filing offices are being more careful upfront. Better to over-describe than under-describe these days.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•Good to know the reasoning behind it. Makes the rejection sting a little less.
0 coins
Dmitry Kuznetsov
•Exactly right. I've seen lenders lose priority because their UCC description was too vague to cover what they thought it covered.
0 coins
Sofia Hernandez
•Yep, specificity protects everyone involved. Worth the extra effort upfront.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
Try this language: 'All equipment, machinery, vehicles, inventory, accounts, chattel paper, instruments, documents, deposit accounts, investment property, letter-of-credit rights, supporting obligations, and general intangibles.' That covers pretty much everything without being too generic.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•That's perfect, thank you! Definitely more comprehensive than what I had.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•You're welcome. I keep that template handy for blanket liens. Works in most states.
0 coins
Miguel Ramos
Just went through the same thing last week. Spent hours redoing the paperwork. Really wish there was an easier way to catch these mistakes before filing. The rejection fees add up too.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Hashimi
•That's exactly why I started using that Certana tool I mentioned earlier. Saves both time and rejection fees.
0 coins
Miguel Ramos
•Might have to look into that. Getting tired of learning about requirements the hard way.
0 coins
Zainab Ibrahim
Quick question - did your security agreement use the same 'all business assets' language? Because if so, you might want to consider amending that too for consistency.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•Good point. The security agreement is a bit more detailed but probably should match exactly.
0 coins
Zainab Ibrahim
•Definitely. Having mismatched descriptions between your UCC and security agreement can cause problems later.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Hashimi
•This is another thing that document checker catches - inconsistencies between related filings.
0 coins
StarSailor
For what it's worth, I've had good luck with adding 'now owned or hereafter acquired' to the end of my collateral descriptions. Covers future assets without being too vague about current ones.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•That's a nice touch. Probably important for a line of credit where they'll be buying new equipment.
0 coins
Amara Chukwu
•Good addition. Just make sure your security agreement supports after-acquired property clauses.
0 coins
Connor O'Brien
Update: refiled with the detailed collateral description and it went through without any issues. Thanks everyone for the help! Definitely learned my lesson about being more specific upfront.
0 coins
Mei Liu
•Glad it worked out! These filing requirements are a pain but they make sense once you understand the reasoning.
0 coins
NeonNova
•Great outcome. This thread was really helpful for understanding the collateral description requirements.
0 coins