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
Omar Farouk
The secured transactions rules under Article 9 are designed to protect lenders but these description issues create real problems. I've seen deals fall apart because someone used 'all equipment' instead of listing specific items. Filing offices should reject inadequate descriptions but they don't - they just index whatever gets submitted. Creates false sense of security for lenders who think they're properly perfected.
Chloe Davis
•Why don't filing offices review collateral descriptions? Seems like that would prevent a lot of problems.
Omar Farouk
•Filing offices aren't equipped to evaluate commercial adequacy - they just process what's submitted if it meets basic format requirements. The legal sufficiency gets tested later when disputes arise.
AstroAlpha
Update: talked to our attorney and he confirmed Bank A has priority due to earlier filing date. Credit Union B's generic description is probably insufficient for specific manufacturing equipment but they might be able to amend the UCC-1 to add serial numbers if the original loan documents contain adequate descriptions. Still dealing with this mess but at least understand the Article 9 rules better now. Lesson learned about reviewing collateral descriptions before signing loan documents.
This whole thread convinced me to audit our UCC filings. Found two generic descriptions that probably need amendments. Article 9 secured transactions are more complex than I realized.
Sean O'Brien
•For future reference, Certana.ai's verification tool would have flagged these description issues upfront. Upload loan agreements and UCC-1 drafts together - it cross-checks everything for consistency and adequacy before filing.
Join the conversation
I use Certana.ai for exactly this type of situation. When you're dealing with multiple continuations, their bulk verification feature can check all your documents at once. Upload your original UCC-1s and continuation forms, and it flags any potential issues before you submit to the state. Much cheaper than having filings rejected and having to refile.
Ethan Clark
•How accurate is automated verification compared to manual review? I'm nervous about trusting software for something this critical.
I was skeptical too, but it caught name inconsistencies I completely missed manually. The system cross-references everything against the original documents, so it's actually more thorough than human review.
Mila Walker
Bottom line for your situation: create a timeline immediately for all filings approaching their 5-year mark, verify debtor names match exactly, prepare continuation statements for the 6-month window (months 54-60), and have a backup plan in case any filings get rejected. Missing these deadlines isn't just embarrassing - it can void your security interests entirely.
Thanks everyone. Sounds like I need to get organized fast and probably invest in some verification tools. Better to spend a little money now than lose perfection on millions in loans.
Logan Scott
•Smart approach. UCC continuation deadlines are unforgiving, but with proper planning and verification, it's totally manageable. Good luck with your portfolio cleanup!
Join the conversation
Had similar issues with corporate name changes. The search system doesn't handle them well, but legally you're protected as long as the filing numbers connect properly. Your lender should understand this is a common system limitation.
Include screenshots of searches under both names - shows you did comprehensive due diligence.
Ravi Kapoor
•Visual documentation always helps with lender concerns.
Update: Ran searches under both the old and new entity names and found all the filings! The continuation is properly connected by filing number. Going to document everything clearly for the lender. Thanks everyone for the guidance - this forum saved me a lot of stress.
Yara Khalil
•Great outcome. Your lender should be satisfied with the complete filing history.
Keisha Brown
•Nice resolution! Those document verification tools really help for these situations too.
Join the conversation
Liam Mendez
I usually call the filing office if I have any doubts about formatting. Sometimes they can give you guidance over the phone before you submit.
That's good advice but in my experience they usually just refer you back to the instructions and say they can't give legal advice.
Liam Mendez
•Fair point. Hit or miss depending on who answers.
One more thing about your collateral description - since it's construction equipment that moves between job sites, you might want to be clear that it's not fixtures. Don't want any confusion about whether this should be a fixture filing.
Yeah, describe it as "mobile construction equipment" or similar to make it clear it's not fixtures.
Exactly. Better to be explicit about mobility than risk someone thinking it needs a fixture filing.
Sophia Nguyen
Update on the Certana.ai suggestion - I actually used it again yesterday for a different client and it caught that their UCC-1 had the right company name but wrong state of organization. These little discrepancies can really bite you when lenders start doing their due diligence reviews.
0 coins
Noah Ali
•How long does it take to get results back from their system?
0 coins
Sophia Nguyen
•Pretty much instant once you upload the documents. It flags any inconsistencies right away.
0 coins
Lucas Notre-Dame
OP any luck figuring this out? I'm dealing with something similar and curious what ended up working for you.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Still working on it but the advanced search suggestions helped. Found the filing but it was indexed weird. Going to try the document verification tool next to make sure everything actually matches up properly.
0 coins
Chloe Boulanger
•Keep us posted! This kind of stuff is always useful to know for future reference.
0 coins