UCC security interest priority rules - equipment loan mess with multiple lenders
Got myself into a real headache here and need some guidance on UCC security interest priority rules. We financed some manufacturing equipment back in March 2024 with a regional bank, they filed their UCC-1 on March 15th. Then in August we needed additional working capital and took out another loan with a different lender using the same equipment as collateral - they filed their UCC-1 on August 22nd. Now I'm finding out there might be issues with the priority between these two liens and I'm not sure who has the superior security interest. The equipment is worth about $180k and both loans are still active. Bank #1 has about $95k outstanding, Bank #2 has $67k outstanding. I thought it was just first-to-file wins but my attorney is telling me it's more complicated than that. Anyone dealt with overlapping UCC filings on equipment collateral? Really need to understand how the priority rules actually work in practice.
33 comments
Join the conversation
Kendrick Webb
First-to-file generally does win for equipment collateral, but there are definitely exceptions. Were both UCC-1s filed as purchase money security interests (PMSI)? That can change the priority rules completely. Also need to check if the collateral descriptions in both filings actually overlap or if they're describing different aspects of the equipment.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•The first filing was definitely PMSI since it financed the original equipment purchase. The second one was just general business loan secured by existing equipment, so not PMSI. Does that make a difference in the priority?
0 coins
Kendrick Webb
•Yes, huge difference! PMSI gets special priority treatment under UCC Article 9. Even if filed later, a PMSI in equipment generally takes priority over earlier non-PMSI security interests in the same collateral. Your March filing should have priority over the August filing.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
Wait hold on, you said both loans are still active? You need to pull both UCC-1 filings and compare the exact collateral descriptions. Sometimes lenders get sloppy with descriptions and they might not actually conflict. I've seen cases where one describes 'manufacturing equipment' and another describes 'machinery and fixtures' - could be different property entirely depending on how it's classified.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•Both descriptions are pretty broad - first one says 'all manufacturing equipment, machinery, and related fixtures' and the second says 'equipment, inventory, and business assets.' Definitely seems like overlap to me.
0 coins
Destiny Bryant
•That second description is way too broad and might have problems. 'Business assets' is not a proper collateral description under UCC rules. The filing might be defective.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
•Good catch on the vague description. But even if it's defective, courts sometimes allow broad descriptions if they reasonably identify the collateral. OP should get both filings reviewed by someone who knows UCC priority rules inside and out.
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
Had a similar nightmare last year with competing security interests. Ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool to upload both UCC-1s and cross-check all the details - debtor names, filing dates, collateral descriptions, everything. It instantly flagged the priority issues and inconsistencies between the filings. Really helped me understand exactly where the conflicts were before talking to my attorney. Might be worth uploading your UCC-1s to see what it finds.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
•Never heard of that tool but sounds useful. Is it specifically for UCC priority analysis or just general document checking?
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
•It does UCC document verification - you upload the PDFs and it automatically checks for debtor name matches, filing consistency, collateral overlap, stuff like that. Really good at catching details you might miss when comparing multiple filings manually.
0 coins
Anna Xian
This is exactly why I hate dealing with multiple lenders. The priority rules are a maze and even lawyers disagree on the interpretations sometimes. Your PMSI should win but you need to make sure it was properly perfected and that the collateral descriptions actually match the equipment in question.
0 coins
Jungleboo Soletrain
•Agree the system is ridiculous. Had a client where three different lenders all thought they had first priority on the same equipment. Took months to sort out and cost a fortune in legal fees.
0 coins
Anna Xian
•Exactly. And don't even get me started on continuation statements - miss one deadline and your perfected security interest can lapse and suddenly you're subordinate to everyone else.
0 coins
Rajan Walker
Check the exact filing dates and times too. I've seen cases where filings made on the same day come down to the actual timestamp of when they were received by the Secretary of State. Every minute can matter for priority determination.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•The filings were months apart so timing within the day shouldn't be an issue. March 15th vs August 22nd is pretty clear.
0 coins
Nadia Zaldivar
•Right, but still good to verify the actual recorded dates match what you think they are. I've seen filing dates get messed up in the system before.
0 coins
Lukas Fitzgerald
One thing nobody's mentioned - did both lenders properly notify each other about their security interests? Under certain circumstances, there are notification requirements that can affect priority, especially with PMSI.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•I don't think either lender notified the other. Is that required for equipment PMSI? I thought notification was only required for inventory PMSI.
0 coins
Lukas Fitzgerald
•You're right - equipment PMSI doesn't require notification to existing secured parties like inventory PMSI does. As long as the equipment PMSI was filed within 20 days of the debtor receiving possession, it should have priority regardless of notification.
0 coins
Kendrick Webb
•Correct on the notification rules. Equipment PMSI is much simpler - just needs to be filed within 20 days of possession to get super-priority over earlier filings.
0 coins
Ev Luca
Are you sure the first lender actually has PMSI status? Just because they financed the equipment purchase doesn't automatically make it PMSI. The security agreement and UCC-1 need to specifically indicate PMSI status, and the proceeds need to be used directly for the equipment purchase.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•The loan documents definitely show it was for equipment purchase and the funds went directly to pay the equipment vendor. UCC-1 doesn't specifically say PMSI though - is that required?
0 coins
Ev Luca
•The UCC-1 doesn't need to say 'PMSI' specifically, but the underlying transaction needs to meet PMSI requirements. If the loan proceeds went directly to pay for the equipment, that should qualify as PMSI regardless of what the UCC-1 says.
0 coins
Avery Davis
I ran into something similar and ended up having to work with both lenders to subordinate one of the liens. Sometimes it's easier to negotiate a solution than fight over priority in court. Especially if both lenders want to maintain the relationship.
0 coins
Collins Angel
•Good point about negotiating. Courts hate UCC priority disputes and they're expensive for everyone involved. Better to work out subordination agreements if possible.
0 coins
Avery Davis
•Exactly. In my case we got the second lender to agree to subordinate in exchange for personal guarantees and a slightly higher interest rate. Much cheaper than litigation.
0 coins
Marcelle Drum
Whatever you do, don't ignore this. I've seen businesses get blindsided when both lenders try to exercise their security interests and suddenly you're dealing with competing foreclosure actions. Get clarity on the priority now before any problems arise with either loan.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
•That's exactly what I'm worried about. Both loans are current now but if something happens I don't want to be caught in the middle of a lender fight over the equipment.
0 coins
Tate Jensen
•Smart to address it proactively. Used Certana.ai recently to verify some overlapping UCC filings - uploaded the documents and it immediately highlighted the priority conflicts and filing inconsistencies. Saved me from walking into a mess later.
0 coins
Adaline Wong
Get copies of both UCC-1 filings from the Secretary of State and have them reviewed side by side. Look at debtor names, collateral descriptions, filing dates, and amendment history. Small discrepancies can sometimes void a security interest entirely.
0 coins
Gabriel Ruiz
•This is crucial advice. I've seen UCC-1s get rejected or become unenforceable because of minor errors in debtor names or addresses. Even small typos can kill a filing.
0 coins
Adaline Wong
•Exactly. And don't just look at the original UCC-1s - check if there have been any amendments, continuations, or terminations filed. The priority picture can change over time with subsequent filings.
0 coins
Misterclamation Skyblue
•Another tool that helps with this kind of document review is Certana.ai - you can upload all the UCC documents and it cross-references everything automatically. Catches name mismatches, date conflicts, description overlaps, all the stuff that's easy to miss when reviewing manually.
0 coins