Service Area: UCC Services

Seriously Misleading UCC Filing. Can You Solve the Mystery?

Posted on June 24, 2019 by - UCC Financing Statements

Seriously Misleading UCC Filing. Can You Solve the Mystery?

Who enjoys a good ol’ mystery game? Today’s mystery is why a Georgia Bankruptcy Court deemed one creditor’s UCC filing seriously misleading, thus making the creditor’s security interest unperfected. First, we’ll go through the facts of the case, then review the requirements under Article 9, and then the big reveal: why was the UCC seriously misleading!

Facts of Case: In re Wastetech, LLC, Bankr. Court, ND Georgia 2019

In 2017, the debtor executed six agreements granting a secured interest to the creditor. The six agreements were executed on the following dates in 2017: June 13, July 6, July 19, August 3, August 18, and September 26.

The Debtor’s Name Change

Smack in the middle of these six agreements, on July 27, 2017, the debtor changed its name from NTC Waste Group, LLC to Wastetech, LLC.

The Creditor’s UCC Filing

On November 14, 2017, the creditor filed a UCC-1 Financing Statement. The creditor identified the debtor on the Financing Statement as NTC Waste Group, LLC. Within the Financing Statement, the creditor also provided the following collateral description:

“Certain future receivables sold by said business seller and purchased by Crown Funding Group, Inc., as buyer, pursuant to that certain purchase and sale of future receivables agreement between seller and purchaser dated 8/7/2017 (the “agreement”).”

Timeline of Pertinent Events seriously misleading timeline of events

The Debtor Files for Bankruptcy & Trustee Begins the Search

February 13, 2018, the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection. After the bankruptcy filing, the bankruptcy trustee set out to identify the creditors with UCC filings in place.

The trustee searched for UCC filings by two variations of the debtor’s current name: “Wastetech” and “Wastetech, LLC”. The trustee’s searches did not reveal any UCC filings. The trustee then submitted to the court that it also searched by the debtor’s former name (NTC Waste Group, LLC), which did reveal a UCC filing. Searching got a bit technical, here’s an excerpt from the court decision:

“… the Trustee recently conducted several UCC index searches through the GSCCCA database using the Debtor’s correct name as well as its former name… According to the Affidavit, statewide “searches using the search terms `Wastetech’ or `Wastetech LLC’ did not lead to finding the Financing Statement.” Only searches using the former name of the Debtor produced the Financing Statement.”

But wait, there’s more! The trustee was certainly thorough.

“Further searches conducted using the standard search logic in the Debtor’s name through the GSCCCA database in the Coweta County UCC Index along with a stem search for the Debtor’s name also failed to return the Financing Statement, though UCC-1’s for another entity were disclosed. Finally, additional statewide stem searches using the Debtor’s name did not disclose the Financing Statement. Based on these results, the Trustee through counsel states that ‘a search of the Coweta County UCC Index, and the Georgia Statewide UCC Index, using a debtor name stem search in the GSCCCA database for the Debtor’s correct legal name of record did not disclose the Financing Statement.’”

No Safe Harbor

The search type described above was to prove the creditor’s Financing Statement didn’t appear under the “single exception” aka safe harbor. (The single exception, according to the court decision, is “a search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic” which would disclose such financing statement.”)

Corporate Search & Public Organic Record Are Not the Same

The creditor argued “…that a search of the UCC records under “NTC” did produce the Financing Statement, and that a search of “wastetech” in the records of the Georgia Corporations Division led to Wastetech LLC, which was formerly known as NTC Waste Group, LLC…”

Yes, you read that correctly “Georgia Corporations Division” (a corporate search, not the public organic record).

The creditor cited several cases regarding effective UCC filings, despite the debtor name being incorrect. Unfortunately for the creditor, the cases cited all related to UCC filings that were filed PRIOR to a debtor’s name change. The creditor also tried to argue that it filed its UCC within 4 months of the debtor’s name change — but that’s not how it works. It appears the creditor wanted the 4 month window under Article 9-507(c) to apply, except that section applies to UCCs filed prior to a name change.

OH, and the Collateral Description

There was an issue with the creditor’s collateral description – which seems minor compared to the flurry of back & forth over the correct name of the debtor. Within the UCC-1 Financing Statement, the collateral description is “certain future receivables sold by said business seller and purchased…” But it did not please the court because the collateral description is specific rather than of a category.

“Had the description been “all future receivables of the Debtor,” it would have met the requirements under Section 11-9-108 by describing the collateral through category.”

The judge is ready to decide. Is the UCC filing seriously misleading?

The judge did not mince words in the decision. The creditor’s UCC filing was seriously misleading, which made the filing ineffective and the security interest unperfected.

“First, the Debtor’s name as listed in the Financing Statement is inconsistent with its legal name on the public record. Moreover, a search of the Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority’s Lien records for the Debtor’s correct name would not have disclosed the existence of the Financing Statement. Second, the Financing Statement does not indicate that it covers all assets or all personal property of the Debtor, and it fails to provide a description of, or reasonably identify, the Debtor’s Accounts Receivable that are subject to the Defendant’s security interest. Accordingly, the Financing Statement is seriously misleading, and perfection of the Defendant’s security interest in Debtor’s Accounts Receivable is legally ineffective.”

OK, So Maybe It’s Not a Mystery. Seriously.

I admit, as far as mysteries go this was kind of lame. I mean, given the facts of this case, is it really a mystery that the creditor was left with an ineffective Financing Statement, hanging out with unsecured creditors? Failing to correctly identify the debtor on the Financing Statement, relying on a corporate search versus the public organic record, and providing a poor collateral description? Definitely no mystery. I promise to craft a better mystery next time, until then, don’t be like this creditor!

  • Always identify your customer by their name as it appears in the public organic record
  • Public organic record and a corporate search are NOT the same thing
  • Carefully review your collateral description
  • After filing, conduct a reflective search to confirm the filing has been indexed properly

Let’s Talk About Commercial Bankruptcy

Posted on June 3, 2019 by - Credit Risk Management, Mechanic's Liens & Bond Claims, UCC Financing Statements

Let’s Talk About Commercial Bankruptcy: The More You Know, the Greater Your Chance at Preserving Your Rights as a Secured Creditor

The more you understand about commercial bankruptcy and the bankruptcy process, the greater chance of preserving your rights as a secured creditor and ultimately receiving payment.

Refresher: What’s a Secured Creditor?

A secured creditor has a security interest over some or all of the assets of its debtor. This status can be achieved and maintained through a variety of credit tools such as Mechanic’s Liens, Bond Claims and UCC filings.

In the event of the debtor’s bankruptcy or default, secured creditors have payment priority over their unsecured counterparts, significantly improving the likelihood of getting paid.

The Breakdown: Chapter 7 vs. Chapter 11

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor ceases operations, its assets are liquidated by an appointed Trustee, and the funds are used to pay the outstanding debt.

In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the debtor wants to continue operating. The debtor will undergo significant structural changes and arrange to pay its creditors over a set period of time.

The Bankruptcy Proof of Claim

As a creditor, it’s important you take the proper steps to protect your interest. Depending on the type of commercial bankruptcy your customer has filed, you may be required to file a Proof of Claim with the bankruptcy court by the specified date, also known as the bar date.

As per the United States Bankruptcy Court, a Proof of Claim is “a written statement and verifying documentation filed by a creditor that describes the reason the debtor owes the creditor money.” This document is critical because it provides proof to the court that your claim amount is valid and owed, as well as what class to associate your claim with.

Generally, this document will include:

  • Debtor name
  • Case number
  • Creditor information, including mailing address
  • Claim amount
  • Basis for the claim
  • Type of claim (secured or unsecured)
  • Supporting documentation

In the event of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you must file a timely proof of claim in order to share in any distribution of funds. The bar date refers to a date, established by the bankruptcy court and based on a variety of factors, by which the proof of claim must be filed. Often, creditors fail to submit the document in time and suffer the consequence of an invalid claim. Whether your claim amount is secured or unsecured, be sure to meet the stated deadline to preserve your rights and maximize any potential distribution.

In a Chapter 11 proceeding, it’s typically unnecessary for a creditor to file a Proof of Claim. This is because the debtor is required to file a Schedule of Assets and Liabilities, which formally lists its creditors’ claim amounts. However, filing a Proof of Claim is recommended if:

  • The claim amount is listed incorrectly on the Schedule of Assets & Liabilities or,
  • The claim amount is defined as designated, unliquidated or contingent

In these cases, if a Proof of Claim is not filed, the bankruptcy court will deem the information on the Schedule of Assets & Liabilities as correct and distribute the funds accordingly.

If your debtor has recently filed for bankruptcy, it’s critical to act quickly and take the necessary steps to validate your claim amount. Immediately determine the type of bankruptcy preceding you’re dealing with and whether you should complete a Proof of Claim form. If filing, be sure the document is accurate and ON TIME.

We Can Help

Don’t risk an invalid claim and losing out on payment distribution. Let NCS assist in preparing, filing and monitoring your bankruptcy Proof of Claim today. Contact us for more information!

Arizona Preliminary Notice Changes Coming December 2019!

Posted on May 24, 2019 by - In Other Commercial Credit News, Preliminary Notices & Construction Credit

Arizona Preliminary Notice Changes Coming December 2019!

We are often asked, “Do I have to serve an amended notice if my contract amount increases?” and, “If so, how much does my contract have to increase to warrant another notice?” Generally, we recommend serving an amended notice when your contract amount increases by 20% or more. This recommendation is based on case law, attorney recommendations, and specific statute, e.g., Arizona.

In fact, Arizona’s current statute specifically states a claimant only needs to serve one preliminary notice, unless its contract amount increases by 20% or more, then the claimant should amend its notice.

“A person required by this section to give notice…need give only one notice…unless the actual estimated total price for the labor, professional services, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished or to be furnished exceeds by twenty per cent or more the total price in any prior original or subsequent preliminary notice…”

Soon “30″ Will Be the New “20″ in Arizona!

Earlier this month the Governor of Arizona signed HB1304 which updates the requirement for when an amended notice is required. For any projects where first furnishing occurs on or after 12/31/19, an amended notice will only be required if the contract amount increases by 30% or more.

“Effective for any projects where furnishings are first commenced to be furnished from and after 12-31-19, an additional notice will be required if the estimated total price for the furnishings exceeds by 30% or more the total price in a prior notice under the same contract.” – Legislative Update from The National Lien Digest

What Does This Mean for You?

Currently, under Arizona statute, if your original contract amount is $100,000 and a change order is issued increasing your contract to $120,000 (increased by 20%), you are required to serve an amended preliminary notice.

Here’s what it will look like at the end of December:

Arizona statute as of 12/31/19

Once the new statute is in effect, you may notice a decrease in the number of required amended notices; saving you time & money.

Always Perform A Reflective UCC Search

Posted on May 20, 2019 by - UCC Financing Statements

Always Perform a Reflective UCC Search: Especially on Your Recent Pennsylvania UCC Filings with Attachments

You should always perform a reflective search on each UCC filing to ensure your filing was indexed correctly. Through a reflective search you are likely to quickly catch errors in the spelling of a party name, and in the case of Pennsylvania, quickly identify when attachments aren’t recorded with the filing.

While performing a reflective UCC search on a Pennsylvania filing, our UCC Specialist identified issues with Pennsylvania’s records: attachments weren’t included with the recorded UCC filings.

Red Alert

You can imagine the potential issue with your UCC filing if your collateral description refers to an attachment, and the attachment isn’t attached.

Upon discovering the error, our UCC Specialist contacted the Pennsylvania Department of State and alerted them of the issue. In response, the Pennsylvania Department of State corrected the issue and then released a statement regarding the missing attachments. You can read the Pennsylvania Department of State’s statement via The National Law Review: Pennsylvania Bureau Notifies Filers of the Loss of Attachments Submitted with UCC Records

Here’s Jerry Bailey with the recap:

If you have questions or need assistance with searches, please contact us!

When Your Collateral Description Sufficiently Complies with Article 9

Posted on May 17, 2019 by - In Other Commercial Credit News, UCC Financing Statements

Collateral Descriptions Are Tricky! It’s Hard to be Specific without Being Too Specific. Does Your UCC Sufficiently Comply with Article 9?

We know strict compliance with Article 9 is vital in perfecting your security interest. Collateral descriptions can be a tricky business; don’t be too specific or too vague. Fortunately for one creditor, a bankruptcy judge deemed its collateral description as “sufficient”, even though it included a specific address.

What Makes a Collateral Description Sufficient?

According to Article 9-108, a collateral description is “sufficient” if it reasonably identifies the collateral. Whether the collateral is identified by specific listing, category, quantity, or “computational or allocational formula,” it doesn’t have to be perfect, if it’s enough to put other creditors on notice.

“What? It doesn’t have to be perfect?”

Gosh, it’s tough when speaking in terms of perfection. So, I’m calling on author Francis Buckley, Jr. to help me out –

“Fortunately, the policy behind the law governing secured transactions under the UCC explains financing statements are meant to simply provide notice of the transaction and give enough information to subsequent potential creditors that the debtor’s property may be covered by a prior creditor’s security interest. Essentially, a financing statement is meant to provide a starting point in a subsequent creditor’s due diligence process, not the conclusion.”

Oooooh, I like that! “…a financing statement is meant to provide a starting point in a subsequent creditor’s due diligence process, not the conclusion.”

Yes, ideally your Financing Statement should be perfect. But mistakes do happen and while some mistakes are costly, others are forgiven, as is the case in the 8760 Service Group case.

In 8760 Service Group, the secured creditor added what Buckley referred to as an “address restricter,” essentially adding the address to its collateral description:

“All Accounts Receivable, Inventory, equipment and all business assets, located at 1803 W. Main Street, Sedalia, MO 65301.”

A subsequent creditor argued the inclusion of an address left the Financing Statement seriously misleading and the security interest unperfected. But Judge Dow disagreed with the subsequent creditor. According to Judge Dow the “UCC does not require a perfect collateral description… only an ‘indication’ of such coverage…”

Here’s an excerpt from Francis Buckley Jr.’s It May Be Foul, But There Is No Harm: Not All Mistakes Have Dire Consequences Under UCC Article 9:

“In an interesting twist, Judge Dow found that the existence of an ambiguity in the collateral description of the financing statement did not prejudice the prior-filed creditor, but instead provided sufficient notice to the subsequent-filed creditor to impose a duty of further inquiry into the nature of the secured transaction covered under the financing statement. Judge Dow pointed out that the court does not employ traditional means of statutory construction in analyzing an ambiguous financing statement because the court does not proceed to interpret the language. Instead, the court inquires whether the financing statement sufficiently describes the collateral such that ‘the subsequent creditor should have been on notice to inquire further into the collateral.’”

Best Practice? Take Your Time & Draft Carefully

Frequently I see collateral descriptions that tend to be a bit more general: “…in all payment intangibles, accounts, accounts receivable owed to ABC Company…” (Unless, of course, it is related to a specific piece of equipment where serial numbers come into play.)

My advice is be careful when drafting the collateral description. Understand that if you include an address, it may be deemed as seriously misleading. Not to mention the potential catastrophe: what if there is no collateral at that address?! If you do include an address, keep tabs on your customer – make sure they don’t move the collateral to another location.

Consignment Creditors, Give Back the Money

Posted on May 10, 2019 by - In Other Commercial Credit News

Sports Authority Consignment Creditors, Give Back the Money!

Consignment creditors in the Sports Authority bankruptcy have been dealt a crushing blow with the Court’s recent decision: Sports Authority was not “substantially engaged” in consignment sales. What does the decision mean? The non-UCC-filing-creditors who relied on the argument that Sports Authority commonly engages in consignment sales are now unsecured creditors.

*womp womp*

Quick Back Story

When Sports Authority filed for bankruptcy protection in 2016, big name creditors (e.g. Nike & Under Armour) with big dollar credit lines (e.g. $40M+) didn’t seem overly concerned with the lack of UCC filings to secure the credit lines.

Two reasons the creditors may have been lulled into a false sense of security:

  1. A classic case of “too big to fail” and
  2. Some experts believed these creditors would successfully retain rights to collateral or proceeds, based on the argument that Sports Authority is commonly known to participate in consignment sales.

We now know, of course, that Sports Authority was certainly not too big to fail. And thanks to the recent bankruptcy court decision, we also know that Sports Authority was not commonly engaged in consignment sales.

What the Bankruptcy Court Said

In its recent decision, the bankruptcy court conceded there is no bright-line rule for determining whether a business is substantially engaged in consignment. However, in previous cases, courts have held that 20% or more of the business’s inventory must be consigned goods.

In this case, it was determined Sports Authority’s inventory was comprised of only 14% of consigned goods.

“…the Debtors never “substantially engaged” in consignment transactions. WSFS and the Debtors stipulated that at no point, pre-or-post petition, did the Debtors’ total inventory include more than 14% of consigned goods.”

“…the threshold for substantial engagement is met only if consigned goods comprise “20% or more” of the value of the Debtors’ inventory.”

“Be a Good Sport and Give ‘Em Back!”

So, What Happens to The Funds Given to Those Consignment Creditors? “Be a Good Sport and Give ‘Em Back!”

OK, sportsmanship isn’t driving this decision, the court order is. In their review of the court’s decision, authors Michael Shiner and Maribeth Thomas, in Protecting a Consignor’s Interests in Retail Bankruptcy, advised that the court ordered the consignors to repay the funds.

“Judge Mary F. Walrath issued an opinion…that requires a consignor of goods to disgorge payments [i.e. repay] received from the debtor after the commencement of its chapter 11 bankruptcy case, with the disgorged funds to be paid to the secured lender.”

Consignment & UCC Article 9

Are you required to file a UCC when selling on consignment? Required, no. Recommended, yes.

Before you opt out of filing a UCC, you should understand what constitutes a consignment under Article 9. Here’s the definition of consignment under Article 9-102:

“Consignment” means a transaction, regardless of its form, in which a person delivers goods to a merchant for the purpose of sale and:

(A) the merchant:

(i) deals in goods of that kind under a name other than the name of the person making delivery;
(ii) is not an auctioneer; and
(iii) is not generally known by its creditors to be substantially engaged in selling the goods of others;

(B) with respect to each delivery, the aggregate value of the goods is $1,000 or more at the time of delivery;
(C) the goods are not consumer goods immediately before delivery; and
(D) the transaction does not create a security interest that secures an obligation.

Does your transaction not meet Article 9’s definition of consignment?

“If a consignment does not satisfy the requirements of Section 9-102(a)(20), the relationship between the consignor and consignee is governed by common law and the interest of the consignment seller would prevail over the interest of secured creditors.” – Authors Michael Shiner and Maribeth Thomas

Why File a UCC if Selling on Consignment?

Because the law allows you to secure your goods! A simple consignment agreement is often viewed by the courts as a “secret lien” and may not be enough to protect you if your debtor defaults or files for bankruptcy protection, as there is no legal/recorded document identifying your title to the goods provided to the debtor.

If the debtor files for bankruptcy protection, the inventory the debtor has on hand is gathered up and sold off to pay creditors (secured creditors first and then the unsecured creditors). Without the UCC filing identifying you as a secured creditor and specifically identifying your goods, the inventory you supplied automatically becomes property of the estate.

Get Your Head in the Game: File a UCC

If selling on consignment,

  • execute a security agreement and
  • ensure it includes clear identification of inventory,
  • search for existing secured creditors & notify those creditors of your security interest,
  • file the UCC-1 in the appropriate jurisdiction(s) – if possible, and
  • file the UCC prior to the debtor taking possession of the inventory.

We’re here to help!

Digital Assets a General Intangible under Wyoming’s UCC

Posted on April 12, 2019 by - In Other Commercial Credit News, UCC Financing Statements

Digital Assets Now a General Intangible under Wyoming’s UCC

Wyoming is the first and only state to enact blockchain-enabling laws. It is also the first state to clarify the treatment of digital assets (bitcoin) under the Uniform Commercial Code. The virtual currency is considered a general intangible and the new law authorizes the granting of a security interest.

“AN ACT relating to property; classifying digital assets within existing laws; specifying that digital assets are property within the Uniform Commercial Code; authorizing security interests in digital assets; establishing an opt-in framework for banks to provide custodial services for digital asset property as custodians; specifying standards and procedures for custodial services under this act; clarifying the jurisdiction of Wyoming courts relating to digital assets; authorizing a supervision fee; making an appropriation; authorizing positions; specifying applicability; authorizing the promulgation of rules; and providing for an effective date.” – Text from the Sixty-Fifth Legislature of the State of Wyoming, 2019 General Session 

Uniform Law Commission & American Law Institute Have Created a Committee

Although Wyoming is the first state to enact this legislation, other states are in the process of reviewing and drafting legislation of their own. However, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) recommends states hold off on changes for the time being.

According to The Uniform Commercial Code and Digital Assets: Legislative Initiatives by Edwin Smith, the ULC and the American Law Institute have created a study committee to “…examine whether any amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), enacted in all states and the District of Columbia, are needed to accommodate emerging technological developments including digital assets.”

Maintain Uniformity

To maintain the “uniform” aspect of the Uniform Commercial Code, some critical issues need to be addressed. In his article, Smith identifies 3 keys: choice of law, substantive law, and ease of understanding and accessibility.

We’ve previously discussed the importance of governing law within your security agreements, right? Well, that is in line with issue 1: choice of law. Because digital assets don’t have a physical jurisdiction (unless the cloud is a jurisdiction?) who (where?) will determine jurisdiction?

“Addressing the commercial law rules for digital assets requires the formulation of uniform choice of law rules among all states.  Otherwise, results among the states may differ depending on the state in which a dispute arises.  Differing results leads to forum shopping and general commercial uncertainty, creating greater risks among transacting parties, discouraging some transactions, and in any event increasing transaction costs.”

Also, is it better to create new legislation or improve existing legislation? This falls under number 2 on his list: substantive law. The legislation should reduce confusion, not create confusion.

“Providing new legislation where existing law is already adequate may lead to confusion and uncertainty.  Improving existing law will require a deliberative process that integrates the new legal rules into the system without disrupting the rules that have worked well for decades.”

Which goes hand in hand with ease of understanding and accessibility.

“Digital asset legislation that has the effect of modifying the rules of the UCC as, for example, by providing new rules for perfection or priority of security interests in digital assets, will be more difficult for practitioners to find and consider if the new rules are not integrated into the UCC itself.”

Stay Tuned! You may also find a Statement from the Uniform Law Commission, shared via ULC’s Twitter account, to be of interest.

Back to Basics: Two Primary Types of UCC Filings

Posted on March 25, 2019 by - UCC Financing Statements

Two Primary Types of UCC Filings: Blanket & PMSI

In compliance with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, trade creditors can achieve a properly perfected security interest with a sound security agreement and the proper filing of a UCC-1 Financing Statement.

But, Article 9 can be difficult to digest. So, today we’ll break down the information into bite-sized pieces! Let’s review two basic types of secured transactions – Blanket and Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) – and the benefits of each!

Types of Filings

Blanket

A Blanket Filing gives the creditor a security interest in all its debtor’s assets, on a non-priority basis. This eliminates potential conflict with the customer’s primary lender, such as a bank.

With this type of filing, payout priority is determined by first in time, first in right.

Who uses Blanket Filings? Blanket Filings are most common when a creditor is providing financing, selling services, or when a debtor “consumes” rather than stocks the goods provided. For example, a uniform company selling to hospitals and a factoring business providing financing could both benefit from this type of filing.

Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI)

A PMSI filing provides similar benefits as the Blanket Filing with the addition of priority in the repossession of specific identifiable goods, such as inventory or equipment.

According to Article 9, a PMSI in Inventory refers to securing collateral that’s defined as “goods, other than farm products,” which fall under one of the following:

– Are leased by a person as lessor;

– Are held by a person for sale or lease or to be furnished under a contract of service;

– Are furnished by a person under a contract of service; OR

– Consist of raw materials, work in process, or materials used or consumed in a business.

PMSI in Inventory is applicable to a creditor supplying goods to a debtor for the purpose of those goods being resold.

Who Uses a PMSI in Inventory? For example, an electronic manufacturer sells wireless headphones to a media retailer who, in turn, sells the headphones to their customers.

PMSI in Equipment refers to securing collateral defined as “goods other than inventory, farm products, or consumer goods.” The equipment provided must be used in the course of the debtor’s business.

Who Uses a PMSI in Equipment? A PMSI in Equipment filing is applicable to a creditor who supplies items such as medical exam tables, printers or commercial refrigerators – equipment your debtor would keep for their own use and not resell to customers.

We’re Here to Help!

In the event of customer bankruptcy or default, it is critical you’ve taken steps to properly perfect your security interest. If you’re interested in learning more about the UCC process or need assistance determining which type of filing best fits your needs, let NCS assist you! Contact us today at 800-826-5256 or email SecureYourTomorrow@NCScredit.com.