UCC Document Community

Update on this - we ended up separating our filing into three parts: UCC-1 for mobile drilling equipment, fixture filings for permanently attached pumping units and tanks, and separate mortgage recordings for the mineral lease interests. All accepted on the second try. The key was being way more specific in each collateral description and not trying to cover everything in one filing.

This is a great example of why oil and gas secured transactions require such specialized knowledge. The complexity comes from the fact that you're essentially dealing with three different types of collateral that each have their own perfection requirements under different legal frameworks. For anyone else facing similar issues, I'd recommend working with a local attorney who specializes in oil and gas law - the state-specific variations in filing requirements can be brutal, and the costs of getting it wrong (like delayed closings or unperfected security interests) far outweigh the legal fees. Also, don't underestimate the ongoing compliance burden once everything is filed - those mobile drilling rigs create perpetual headaches for maintaining perfection across state lines.

Another thing to consider is your collateral descriptions. Make sure the language in your security agreement matches what you put in the UCC filings. I've seen deals where inconsistent descriptions caused problems during enforcement.

Thank you all for this incredibly helpful discussion! As someone new to commercial lending, I was feeling overwhelmed by the UCC vs mortgage requirements, but reading through everyone's experiences has really clarified things for me. The consensus seems to be: when in doubt, file UCC-1 statements for personal property and UCC fixture filings for anything that could be considered removable. I appreciate the practical advice about creating detailed collateral categorization lists and filing well before closing. The horror stories about losing priority due to missed filings are exactly the wake-up call I needed. I'm definitely going to adopt the "over-file rather than under-file" approach and will look into some of the document verification tools mentioned here to avoid description inconsistencies. This community is such a valuable resource for navigating these complex situations!

This has been such a helpful thread. I'm bookmarking it for future reference. The terminology confusion is real and I'm glad I'm not the only one who was struggling with this. UCC-1 financing statement = lien filing. Financial statements = accounting documents. Got it!

This thread saved me so much confusion! I was literally about to call my lender and ask for a "UCC financial statement" template. Now I understand it's just sloppy terminology that gets thrown around. The UCC-1 financing statement is the actual legal document that gets filed to create the security interest, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my business's P&L or balance sheet. Thanks everyone for being so clear about this distinction - it's going to save me from looking foolish on my next loan application!

One more thing - make sure your collateral description hasn't changed either. If you've added equipment since 2020 you might need to amend that too, not just the debtor name.

Had a similar situation in Tennessee a few months back. One thing that might help - when you pull that certificate of existence, also check if your registered agent info matches exactly on both the UCC-1 and your current corporate records. Tennessee sometimes flags mismatches there too, even if it's not obvious. Also, if you're working with a tight timeline and want to be extra careful, consider doing the amendment via their expedited processing for an extra fee. It's like $25 more but cuts the processing time in half. Better safe than sorry when you've got $480k in collateral on the line.

Just went through something similar with construction equipment. Key is documenting that the sale wasn't part of the debtor's ordinary business operations. Court records, business licenses, tax returns showing what they actually do vs. what they sold can all be helpful evidence.

Thanks everyone for the helpful analysis! Based on the discussion, it sounds like we have a strong position since our debtor is clearly a manufacturer selling production equipment rather than being in the equipment sales business. I'll gather documentation showing their actual business operations and licensing to support that this wasn't an ordinary course sale. Really appreciate the insights on how 9-320(a) works - the ordinary course test is more straightforward than I initially thought once you focus on what business the seller is actually in rather than the buyer's knowledge.