UCC filing for commercial security agreement definition - collateral description issues
Running into problems with my UCC-1 filing and need some guidance on commercial security agreement definition requirements. We're trying to perfect our security interest in manufacturing equipment but the SOS portal keeps rejecting our filing due to collateral description issues. The security agreement covers "all equipment, inventory, and accounts" but apparently that's too broad? Our legal department drafted what they called a standard commercial security agreement but now I'm wondering if there's something specific about how we need to define the collateral for UCC purposes. The loan is for $2.8 million in equipment financing and we can't afford to have the lien perfection delayed. Has anyone dealt with similar rejection issues when the underlying security agreement language doesn't match what the UCC-1 requires? I'm getting conflicting advice about whether we need to amend the security agreement itself or just adjust the UCC filing language.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Alexis Robinson
The collateral description in your UCC-1 doesn't have to match the security agreement word-for-word, but it does need to be specific enough to meet UCC requirements. "All equipment" is usually acceptable, but some states want more detail. What state are you filing in? That makes a difference for how specific you need to be.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•Filing in Delaware. The rejection notice mentioned "insufficient collateral description" but didn't give specifics about what they want to see instead.
0 coins
Alexis Robinson
•Delaware SOS can be picky about equipment descriptions. Try something like "all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired, including but not limited to manufacturing equipment, machinery, and fixtures" - gives them the specificity they want while keeping it broad enough to cover everything.
0 coins
Aaron Lee
Been through this exact scenario last month with a client. The issue isn't usually with your commercial security agreement definition - that document can be broader. The UCC-1 collateral description just needs to reasonably identify what you're claiming a security interest in. For manufacturing equipment, I'd suggest listing the specific types: "manufacturing equipment, production machinery, processing equipment, and related fixtures.
0 coins
Chloe Mitchell
•This is solid advice. The security agreement governs the actual security interest, but the UCC-1 is just the public notice. They serve different purposes so the language doesn't have to be identical.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•That makes sense. So I can keep the security agreement as-is and just modify the UCC-1 collateral description to be more specific?
0 coins
Aaron Lee
•Exactly. Just make sure your UCC-1 description doesn't narrow the scope beyond what's in your security agreement. You want the UCC filing to cover everything the agreement covers, just described more specifically.
0 coins
Michael Adams
Had a similar rejection issue and ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload both your security agreement and UCC-1 draft, and it'll flag any inconsistencies between your collateral descriptions. Caught several issues in my filings that would have caused problems later - really helps ensure your commercial security agreement definition aligns properly with your UCC collateral schedule.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•Interesting, haven't heard of that tool. Does it actually compare the documents or just check formatting?
0 coins
Michael Adams
•It does actual document comparison - checks if your UCC collateral description covers everything in your security agreement, flags potential gaps, verifies debtor names match across documents. Pretty thorough for catching stuff that could void your perfection.
0 coins
Alexis Robinson
•That would be helpful for these complex filings. Manual comparison between security agreements and UCC forms is where most errors happen.
0 coins
Natalie Wang
ARGH this is so frustrating!! Why can't they just accept standard commercial security agreement language? I've been dealing with UCC rejections for weeks now and every time I think I've fixed it, they find something else wrong. The whole system is ridiculous.
0 coins
Alexis Robinson
•I feel your pain, but the specificity requirements actually serve a purpose - they help other creditors understand what collateral is encumbered. Hang in there, once you get the language right it gets easier.
0 coins
Natalie Wang
•I guess that makes sense from a policy perspective. Still annoying when you're under deadline pressure though.
0 coins
Noah Torres
The key thing about commercial security agreement definition for UCC purposes is that it needs to give notice to third parties. Your underlying agreement can use broad language like "all assets" but the UCC-1 needs enough detail that someone searching the records can understand what's encumbered. For manufacturing equipment, I usually recommend listing specific categories rather than just "equipment.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•So something like "CNC machines, conveyor systems, industrial presses, and related manufacturing equipment" would work better than just "manufacturing equipment"?
0 coins
Noah Torres
•That's much better. Gives specific examples while still being broad enough to cover similar items. Should satisfy the SOS requirements.
0 coins
Aaron Lee
•Agreed. The more specific examples you can give while maintaining broad coverage, the better chance of acceptance.
0 coins
Samantha Hall
Quick question - when you say "commercial security agreement definition" are you talking about defining the term itself or describing the collateral? Because if it's about the collateral description, that's a UCC Article 9 issue, not really about how you define the security agreement document type.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•Good point - I meant the collateral description requirements. The security agreement document itself is fine, it's just the UCC-1 collateral description that's getting rejected.
0 coins
Samantha Hall
•OK that makes more sense. Yeah, the collateral description is the tricky part. Each state SOS has their own interpretation of what's "sufficient" even though the UCC is supposed to be uniform.
0 coins
Ryan Young
Just went through a similar issue with equipment financing. The problem was that our security agreement used generic language but the UCC-1 needed more specificity. We ended up using categories like "industrial equipment," "processing machinery," and "manufacturing tools" instead of just "equipment." Got accepted on the next try.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•That's helpful. Did you have to amend your security agreement too or just the UCC filing?
0 coins
Ryan Young
•Just the UCC filing. The security agreement language was broad enough to cover everything we listed in the UCC-1, so no need to change the underlying agreement.
0 coins
Sophia Clark
Been dealing with UCC filings for 15 years and commercial security agreement definition issues come up all the time. The biggest mistake I see is people thinking the UCC-1 has to use identical language to the security agreement. It doesn't - it just needs to reasonably describe the collateral in a way that gives public notice. Your security agreement can be broader than your UCC filing, but not the other way around.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•So if my security agreement covers "all equipment and inventory" I could file a UCC-1 that just covers "manufacturing equipment" and that would be fine?
0 coins
Sophia Clark
•That would work legally, but you'd only have a perfected security interest in the manufacturing equipment, not the inventory. Better to file for everything covered by your security agreement.
0 coins
Alexis Robinson
•Right - you want your UCC filing to cover as much as possible while still being specific enough to avoid rejection.
0 coins
Katherine Harris
Another option is to check if your state allows "all assets" or "all personal property" as collateral descriptions. Some states accept that language, others require more specificity. Delaware tends to want more detail though.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•I tried "all personal property" initially and that got rejected too. Seems like Delaware wants specific categories listed.
0 coins
Katherine Harris
•Yeah, Delaware SOS has gotten stricter about generic descriptions. You'll need to list specific types of equipment.
0 coins
Michael Adams
Update on the Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier - I've used it on three different UCC filings now and it's caught issues every time. Really good at comparing your commercial security agreement definition against your UCC collateral schedule to make sure there are no gaps or inconsistencies. Worth trying before you submit the amended filing.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
•I might give that a try. At this point I want to be absolutely sure the next filing gets accepted.
0 coins
Natalie Wang
•Anything that helps avoid more rejections sounds good to me. This process is stressful enough without multiple rounds of corrections.
0 coins
Michael Adams
•Exactly. The tool is pretty straightforward - just upload your PDFs and it runs through a bunch of consistency checks. Saves a lot of manual review time.
0 coins