When to use UCC or restatement for loan modifications - timing confusion

Thanks for clarifying that distinction. So I would file one UCC-3 to both correct the debtor name AND add the real estate collateral description?

Exactly. One UCC-3 can handle multiple changes as long as they're all amendments to the original filing. Just make sure your collateral description for the real estate is specific enough.

It's actually manufacturing equipment that will be installed in their new facility. Would that change the filing approach?

Yes, that's different. Equipment is personal property even if it's installed in a building. Regular UCC-3 amendment should work fine for adding equipment to your existing filing.

Just double-check if any of that equipment becomes fixtures once installed. Fixture filing rules can be tricky.

How does that tool work exactly? Do you just upload PDFs?

Yeah, super simple. You upload your original UCC-1 and then your UCC-3 amendment, and it automatically checks that debtor names match exactly, collateral descriptions are consistent, and filing numbers align. Catches stuff that's easy to miss when you're doing manual comparison.

The UCC filing doesn't need to reflect the loan amount - it just secures whatever debt exists between the parties up to the collateral value. The security agreement itself might need to be amended or restated, but the UCC filing just needs to cover the new collateral.

Oh I see, so the UCC filing and the security agreement are separate documents with different requirements. That makes sense.

Right, don't confuse the two. UCC filings are public notice, security agreements are the actual contract between lender and borrower.

Good point. I'll pull their current articles of incorporation to verify the exact legal name format.

And check if they've had any recent name changes or entity restructuring. Those can complicate the amendment process.

What state was this in? I'm in Ohio and trying to avoid any rejection issues.

This was Michigan, but the collateral description requirements are pretty similar across states. Just be specific about the types of equipment rather than using generic terms.

Does it check for compliance with state-specific rules too?

It mainly focuses on document consistency - making sure your amendment properly references and aligns with your original filing. For state-specific compliance you'd still need to check local requirements.

That works but creates a gap in perfection during the transition. Safer to amend the existing filing to maintain continuous perfection.

Fair point about the perfection gap. Amendment is probably the better approach for active collateral.

Plus terminating and refiling costs more in filing fees than just doing an amendment.

I wasn't aware of timing requirements for amendments. Is this different from continuation deadlines?

Yes, completely different. Continuation is about extending the filing before it lapses. Amendment timing is about how quickly you need to file after making changes to your security interest.

What's your go-to verification process? Manual review or automated tools?

I do both - manual review first, then run it through Certana.ai's PDF checker to catch anything I missed. The automated verification has caught discrepancies that would have caused problems later.

Smart approach. Human review for logic, automation for consistency checks.

Good reminder. I'll coordinate with their insurance agent once the amendment is filed.

And make sure you're listed as loss payee on the updated policy for the new equipment.

That's a really smart strategy about separating the amendments! I hadn't considered how one rejection could hold up the entire filing. Quick question - if you file them separately, do you need to wait for the first amendment to be accepted before filing the second one, or can they be filed simultaneously? Also, what's the typical timeframe for getting written authorization from debtors for amendments like this?