UCC1 clause language causing filing rejections - need advice

Serial numbers help but aren't always required. The key is being specific about the TYPE of equipment. Instead of just 'equipment' try 'construction equipment' or 'manufacturing machinery' - gives them a better idea of what's actually being secured.

This is exactly why I always include the purchase order details in my collateral schedules. Way more work but saves the headache of rejections.

Never heard of that tool but sounds useful. Do you just upload the PDF and it checks everything?

Exactly - upload your UCC-1 draft and it cross-checks against common rejection patterns. Super easy to use and catches stuff you might miss manually.

Interesting, might have to check that out. Getting tired of these back-and-forth rejections eating up so much time.

No, these are all standard equipment deals. Nothing attached to real property. That's what's so frustrating - should be straightforward UCC-1 filings.

Standard equipment can still trip you up if you're not specific enough. What industry are your clients in? Different sectors have different collateral description norms.

Yeah we always double-check the debtor names against their charter documents. The rejections specifically mention collateral description issues, not debtor name problems.

Good that you're checking names carefully. For collateral descriptions, try adding 'and all proceeds thereof' to whatever you're already using. Sometimes that helps with the sufficiency issue.

The proceeds language is good practice but won't solve insufficient description problems. You need to be more specific about the actual collateral.

This is solid advice. The more specific you can be without being overly restrictive, the better. Generic language leaves too much room for interpretation.

Agreed. We started using category-specific descriptions about 6 months ago and our rejection rate dropped significantly.

Tried that but just got the standard 'refer to the UCC statutes' response. Not super helpful when you think you're already following the rules.

Some states are more helpful than others. Worth trying again and maybe asking to speak to a supervisor if you get someone unhelpful the first time.

Interesting approach. Do you update the UCC-1 if the actual purchase price ends up being different?

We usually use ranges or 'approximately' language to avoid that issue. The point is just to show magnitude, not exact values.

Value information can be helpful but isn't required for UCC-1 filings. The description of the collateral itself is what matters most.

That's a good point about context. Helps establish the connection between the debtor and the collateral.

We do this too. Seems to help with acceptance rates, especially for industry-specific equipment.

How detailed does it get with the feedback? Does it suggest specific language changes?

It flags potential issues and common rejection patterns. Really helpful for catching vague or insufficient descriptions before you submit.

Good reminder. The prohibited language varies by state so definitely worth checking the local rules.

We keep a state-by-state checklist for this stuff. Saves a lot of headaches when you're filing in multiple jurisdictions.

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions. Going to revise our standard clause language to be more specific and maybe try that Certana tool to double-check before our next batch of filings.