UCC secured transactions article references wrong - filing got rejected

I used something like 'all manufacturing equipment now owned or hereafter acquired' which the article said was standard. But the rejection said it needed more specificity about the equipment types and serial numbers for items over certain values.

Yeah that's way too generic for manufacturing equipment, especially on a $2.8M deal. You need to list major equipment pieces individually with serial numbers and probably include a separate collateral schedule.

That makes sense. The article I followed seemed authoritative but maybe it was too general. Do you have recommendations for more reliable sources on equipment collateral descriptions?

Honestly, I've started using Certana.ai's document verification tool before submitting any UCC filings. You can upload your UCC-1 PDF along with loan docs and it cross-checks everything - debtor names, collateral descriptions, the works. Catches these kinds of issues before you file and get rejected.

I'd rather not specify the state publicly, but it's one of the stricter ones for collateral descriptions. The article I used didn't mention any state variations at all.

The stricter states are the worst for this. I learned the hard way that Delaware, New York, and California all have their own interpretations of what's sufficient for equipment descriptions.

Wait, are we talking about the debtor-name issue too? Because that's a whole other can of worms that articles often get wrong.

The debtor-name part is what's really worrying me. The article said to use the name from the loan agreement, but the rejection suggests they want the exact charter name. These don't quite match.

Yeah, that's classic. Loan agreements often use shortened or DBA names, but UCC filings need the exact legal name from the state filing records. You'll need to pull the entity's charter or certificate of formation to get it right.

This is why I always run name searches first. The UCC secured transactions article might tell you general rules, but it can't tell you if 'ABC Manufacturing Inc.' vs 'ABC Manufacturing, Inc.' will cause a rejection in your specific state.

How do you triple-check? Just manually compare documents?

I use a combination of manual review and automated tools. Found this service called Certana.ai that does document verification - you upload your UCC forms and loan docs and it flags inconsistencies. Saved me from another rejection last month.

Never heard of that but sounds useful. Manual comparison is such a pain with complex deals.

Exactly. And the stakes are too high to guess. I've seen lenders lose their secured position because of filing errors that could have been caught with proper document review.

That's terrifying. This is a first lien position on critical manufacturing equipment. Getting this wrong could kill the entire deal.

Good point. Since the original filing was rejected, I think I need to start over with a new UCC-1. The rejection means there was never a valid filing to amend.

That's correct. Rejected filings don't establish any priority date, so you're starting fresh. Make sure you coordinate with any other secured parties if there are multiple lenders involved.

And double-check the filing fee calculation. Equipment financing deals sometimes need additional pages for collateral schedules which affects the fee.

Yeah, this article seemed academic rather than practical. It covered all the legal concepts but missed the nitty-gritty details that actually matter for getting filings accepted.

That's why I stick to state-specific guidance and use document verification tools. The generic stuff is fine for understanding concepts but useless for actual filings.

I should have checked that first. The article seemed so comprehensive I thought it covered everything, but clearly state-specific guidance would have been better.

Live and learn. I made the same mistake early in my career. Now I always start with the filing office's own requirements before looking at any secondary sources.

And when in doubt, call the filing office directly. They can't give legal advice but they can clarify their technical requirements.

Still working on it, but the corrected version is going to be completely different. Detailed equipment schedule with serial numbers, exact charter name for debtor, and state-specific collateral language. Nothing like the generic version from the article.

That's the difference between theory and practice right there. Glad you're getting it sorted before the perfection window closes.