Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
This whole process is why I always recommend getting the UCC-3 termination reviewed before filing. Too many ways for banks to mess up the details and delay your financing. Hope yours goes through smoothly!
Thanks for all the advice everyone. Feeling better about the process now and know what to watch for.
Keep us posted on how it turns out. These SBA lien release threads always help other people going through the same thing.
Another thing to consider - if your manufacturing equipment has increased significantly in value since the original UCC-1 filing, the new equipment lender might want to verify the collateral description still accurately reflects what they're securing. Sometimes the original SBA filing had very broad language like "all equipment" while new lenders prefer more specific descriptions. This could impact your new credit line approval even after the UCC-3 termination goes through. Worth having that conversation with your equipment financing company now so there are no surprises later.
That's a really insightful point I hadn't considered! Our manufacturing operation has expanded quite a bit since 2018 and we've added several new pieces of equipment. The original SBA filing probably does have that broad "all equipment" language. Should I be proactively gathering updated equipment lists and valuations for the new lender, or wait until they ask for it? Don't want to create more delays if this becomes an issue after the UCC-3 finally processes.
Join the conversation
Wow, this thread has been incredibly educational to follow! As a newcomer to UCC issues, I'm amazed at how many different angles everyone is exploring to help solve this mystery. The suggestions about data migration issues, foreign entity names, and historical business relationships are all fascinating possibilities I never would have thought of. I'm particularly intrigued by the Certana.ai tool that flagged debtor name inconsistencies - that seems like it could be a real game-changer for these kinds of complex filing research situations. @Lim Wong I'm really hoping you get this resolved before your closing deadline! This whole situation highlights how important it is to start UCC searches early in the process to account for these kinds of unexpected complications. I'll definitely be bookmarking this thread as a reference for future deals. Fingers crossed that one of these investigative leads pans out quickly for you!
This has been such an incredible learning experience following along! I'm completely new to UCC filings and this thread has opened my eyes to just how complex these situations can get. The collaborative problem-solving approach here is amazing - everyone bringing different perspectives and experiences to help @Lim Wong figure this out. I m'really curious about how this ultimately gets resolved. The combination of potential system errors, data migration issues, and the various investigative tools people have suggested creates such a comprehensive approach. As someone who might face similar situations in the future, I m'definitely taking notes on all these troubleshooting strategies. Really hoping the SOS office call and the Certana.ai findings lead to a breakthrough soon! The tight deadline makes this so much more stressful, but it sounds like you have a solid action plan now.
This thread has been absolutely fascinating to follow as someone new to the UCC world! The detective work everyone is doing here really shows the value of community knowledge when dealing with these mysterious filing issues. I'm particularly impressed by how many different angles you're all exploring - from system errors to foreign entity names to historical business relationships. The Certana.ai suggestion seems like it was a real breakthrough moment. @Lim Wong I'm really pulling for you to get this resolved before your closing! One thing I'm curious about - have you considered reaching out to other equipment financing companies or industry contacts to see if anyone else has encountered similar "fundo" liens? Sometimes these weird filing issues affect multiple parties and someone else might have already figured out what it actually refers to. The collaborative problem-solving approach in this community is exactly why these forums are so valuable for newcomers like me trying to learn the ropes!
As someone completely new to UCC filings, this thread has been an incredible crash course in how complex these situations can become! The breadth of expertise and troubleshooting approaches everyone has shared is really impressive. @Collins Angel that s'a brilliant suggestion about reaching out to other equipment financing companies - industry networks often have institutional knowledge about these weird edge cases that individual practitioners might never encounter. I m'also struck by how this case highlights the importance of having multiple investigation strategies running in parallel when you re'under time pressure. The combination of official channels SOS (office ,)technology solutions Certana.ai (,)historical research, and community knowledge-sharing creates such a robust approach to problem-solving. @Lim Wong I really hope one of these leads breaks the case open for you! This whole situation is a perfect example of why starting UCC searches early in any financing deal is so critical - you never know when you ll hit'something this unusual that needs extra time to resolve.
Join the conversation
I'm also new to UCC filings and this has been such a helpful discussion! One thing I'm curious about - do most states have search functions on their Secretary of State websites where you can verify existing UCC filings? I want to make sure I'm not accidentally duplicating a filing or missing something that might already be on record for my client. Also, is there any benefit to filing the UCC-1 earlier in the loan process versus waiting until right before closing? I'm thinking it might give more time to fix any issues that come up, but wasn't sure if there are any downsides to filing too early.
Yes, most Secretary of State websites have UCC search functions where you can look up existing filings by debtor name or filing number. It's actually a good practice to do a search before filing to see what's already on record. As for timing, filing earlier in the process is generally better - it gives you time to fix any rejections or issues without delaying the closing. The only potential downside is if loan terms change significantly, you might need to file an amendment, but that's rare. I usually file as soon as I have the final loan documents and security agreement from the lender.
As a newcomer to UCC filings, I want to thank everyone for this incredibly detailed discussion! I'm currently helping a client with their first equipment loan and was completely overwhelmed by the UCC-1 requirements. This thread has clarified so many things for me - especially the importance of using the exact legal entity name and filing in the state of organization rather than where the business operates. I'm definitely going to use that checklist someone shared and do a UCC search before filing to see what's already on record. One follow-up question: if I discover there are existing UCC filings for my client when I do the search, should I be concerned about priority issues, or is that something the lender typically handles in their due diligence? I want to make sure I'm not missing anything that could affect the loan approval.
Join the conversation
One more thing to consider for your Ohio solar deal - check if your borrower has any existing real estate mortgages on the warehouse property. If they do, you'll want to coordinate with the mortgage lender to make sure there's no conflict over the solar panels. Some mortgage documents have "dragnet" clauses that automatically cover fixtures added to the property, which could create competing security interests. I had a deal where the bank's existing mortgage language was broad enough to arguably cover our solar installation, so we had to get a subordination agreement worked out. It's better to identify this upfront than discover it during a default situation. You might also want to consider requiring the borrower to get lender consent for the solar installation if their mortgage requires it for property modifications.
Great point about the mortgage coordination! I'm actually dealing with this exact situation right now on another solar project. The existing mortgage had language about "all improvements and fixtures now or hereafter erected" which definitely caught our solar panels. We ended up having to get an intercreditor agreement that specifically carved out the solar equipment from the mortgage lien. It added about two weeks to our closing timeline, but much better than finding out about the conflict later. For the warehouse deal mentioned here, I'd definitely recommend pulling the existing mortgage documents early in the process - you don't want any surprises at closing on a $385k deal.
Coming from the perspective of someone who's handled quite a few renewable energy financing deals, I'd strongly recommend the dual filing approach that several others have mentioned. The classification uncertainty around solar panels is real - I've seen courts go both ways even on seemingly identical installations. For your Ohio warehouse deal, the fact that the panels are bolted through the roof membrane and integrated with the building's electrical system makes this a classic borderline case. The dual filing strategy (UCC-1 for equipment plus fixture filing with the county recorder) might cost more upfront, but it's cheap insurance on a $385K loan. Also, don't forget to coordinate the timing of your filings with the installation schedule - you want your security interest perfected before the panels are actually attached to avoid any gaps in coverage. The installation contractor might have their own financing arrangements that could complicate priority if you're not careful about timing.
Caesar Grant
The commercially reasonable standard is really about process, not just outcome. Document your efforts to research market value, consider different disposal methods, and justify your chosen approach. Courts look at whether you acted in good faith and followed reasonable commercial practices.
0 coins
Caesar Grant
•Exactly. The UCC doesn't require you to get the absolute highest price, just that you conduct the sale in a commercially reasonable manner. Process matters more than outcome.
0 coins
Lena Schultz
•But you still want to maximize recovery for the debtor's sake and to minimize any deficiency claim. Good process usually leads to better outcomes anyway.
0 coins
Gemma Andrews
Thanks everyone for the advice. I feel much more confident about proceeding now. I'll send the notices via certified mail, document everything, and go through the equipment auction house. Hopefully the borrower will be reasonable once they see we're following proper procedures.
0 coins
Beatrice Marshall
•One last thought - if the borrower is already threatening legal action, you might want to give your attorney a heads up about the disposition process. Better to have them involved early than scrambling later.
0 coins
Sofía Rodríguez
•Absolutely agree with involving your attorney early. I learned that lesson the hard way on my first disposition case. Even if you follow everything perfectly, borrowers' attorneys can find creative ways to challenge the process. Having counsel review your notices and disposition plan before you execute can save you a lot of headaches down the road. Better to spend a few thousand on prevention than tens of thousands on litigation defense.
0 coins