UCC Document Community

Great thread - really helpful info here! One additional consideration for NY UCC filings: make sure you're clear on the collateral description. NY DOS will reject filings if the collateral description is too vague. For restaurant equipment and inventory, I usually include specific categories like "kitchen equipment, dining room furniture, food inventory, beverages, point-of-sale systems" rather than just "all equipment and inventory." The more specific you can be without being overly restrictive, the better your chances of acceptance and proper perfection.

One thing I'd add for NY restaurant UCC filings - don't forget about after-acquired property clauses if the restaurant will be adding equipment or inventory after your initial filing. The standard language "and all after-acquired collateral of the same or similar type or description" can save you from having to file amendments every time they buy new equipment. Just make sure your security agreement supports it. Also, if the restaurant has multiple locations in NY, you might want to consider whether location-specific descriptions help with identification, though it's not required for perfection purposes.

Keep us posted on how this works out. Your situation could help other people who end up in similar circumstances. The court route seems like your best bet given that the secured party is dissolved.

I went through something very similar about two years ago when our asset-based lender filed bankruptcy mid-loan. Even though we had paid down significantly, the UCC-1 was blocking new credit lines. One thing that helped speed up my court petition was getting an affidavit from the liquidation attorney stating they had no authority to file terminations - even though they couldn't help directly, having that official statement actually strengthened my case for judicial termination. The judge appreciated seeing that I had exhausted all other options before coming to court. Also, if you're working with any new lenders for your expansion, some of them will actually advance the legal costs to clear the UCC if it means they can close your deal faster. Worth asking about.

Just to confirm what others said - you absolutely must use the debtor name exactly as it appears on the original 2020 UCC-1 filing. No variations, no 'corrections' to match current documents, no formatting improvements. The continuation is tied to that specific original filing and must reference the debtor identically. Pull the original filing, copy the name precisely, and refile ASAP.

I'm new to UCC filings and this thread is terrifying me! I'm handling my first continuation filing next month and now I'm worried about making these same formatting mistakes. Is there a checklist or best practices guide somewhere for avoiding these debtor name issues? The stories about losing millions in secured positions over punctuation are giving me nightmares. Should I be looking into that Certana.ai tool people mentioned, or are there other ways to double-check before filing?

Make sure you keep copies of everything including the exact form version you used. If there are ever any questions later about the filing, you'll want to be able to show exactly what was submitted. I keep both electronic and paper copies of all UCC filings for my clients.

Just wanted to add one more tip from my experience - when you're describing manufacturing equipment in the collateral section, consider using broader language like "all manufacturing equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" if your lender agrees. This can provide better coverage if you add equipment later without needing to file amendments. Also, if any of your equipment has existing liens or lease obligations, make sure to coordinate with those lenders to avoid conflicts. California's UCC search system makes it easy to check for existing filings before you submit yours.

I actually ran into a similar document verification issue recently and ended up trying that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. Really handy for these situations where you're not sure if contract language affects filing requirements. Just upload both documents and it highlights any potential conflicts or missing elements.

As a newcomer to UCC filings, this thread has been really helpful! I'm dealing with my first commercial security agreement that has similar non-negotiable non-transferable language and was getting confused about whether it needed special handling. Sounds like the consensus is that these are just contractual terms between the parties and don't affect the actual UCC-1 filing requirements. I appreciate everyone sharing their experience - it's reassuring to know that even with 15+ years of filing experience, people see this language regularly and handle it the same way. Going to stick with the standard equipment description approach and not overthink it!