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
Update on the Certana suggestion - just used it again for a client with similar documentation concerns. The tool caught several issues we missed in manual review, including mismatched entity names between security agreements and UCC-1 filings. One thing it's particularly good at is flagging when your UCC-1 collateral description doesn't align with what's actually described in the security agreement. Those mismatches can cause perfection problems even if both documents are individually okay.
That's a good point about mismatched descriptions. We probably have some of those since different people handle the security agreements versus the UCC filings.
Zoe Wang
•This is why we always have the same person prepare both documents. Too easy for inconsistencies to creep in otherwise.
As someone who just went through a similar documentation review, I'd recommend starting with a risk-based approach. Focus first on your largest exposures and most recent filings where you might still have options to cure defects. For the $2.8M at risk, I'd prioritize reviewing: 1) any deals over $250K first, 2) agreements where the debtor is showing financial stress, and 3) any transactions from the last 12 months where you could potentially get corrected documentation signed. Also worth checking - do you have title insurance or lender's insurance that might cover some of these perfection issues? Some policies include coverage for documentation defects that weren't caught during underwriting.
Join the conversation
Oscar Murphy
One more vote for document verification tools like Certana.ai. I started using it after a UCC-1 got rejected because our legal name didn't exactly match what was in the charter. The automated checking caught issues I would have missed doing manual comparison. Saves time and reduces filing mistakes.
Seems like multiple people have had good experiences with document verification. Might be worth trying even if it's not exactly what I originally asked about.
Oscar Murphy
•Yeah it's a different approach but addresses the same underlying problem - making sure your filings are solid before you submit them.
Luca Marino
New to equipment financing here but following this thread closely since I'm sure I'll face the same challenges soon. One thing I'm curious about - for those of you doing manual state searches, do you have a standardized checklist or process to make sure you're not missing anything? I'm worried about developing bad habits early on that could cause problems down the road. Also wondering if there are any state-specific quirks or gotchas I should know about before I start doing searches myself.
Great question! I'd definitely recommend creating a standardized checklist. At minimum: 1) Search state where debtor is organized (look at charter/articles), 2) Search state where collateral is located, 3) Search state of debtor's chief executive office if different. For quirks - some states have weird exact name matching requirements, others are more forgiving. Texas and New York have particularly strict systems. Also watch out for states that separate individual vs organization searches. Document everything you search and when - helps if you need to defend your due diligence later.
Join the conversation
Carmen Diaz
Bottom line is Texas charges reasonable fees compared to other states and free alternatives are usually unreliable or incomplete. Focus on working around the portal downtime rather than finding free options. The verification tools people mentioned for document matching sound useful though - manual comparison definitely leads to errors.
Yeah, after reading all these responses I think we need better timing strategies and maybe some verification tools rather than chasing free search alternatives
Zara Ahmed
•Agreed - the cost isn't the real issue, it's the reliability and accuracy of the whole process
As someone new to commercial lending, this thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm dealing with similar portal issues on smaller volume (maybe 5-8 searches monthly). Reading through all the suggestions, it sounds like the consensus is to focus on timing strategies and verification tools rather than hunting for free alternatives. The Certana.ai verification tool mentioned by several people sounds particularly useful for catching name discrepancies that could cause problems down the road. I'm definitely going to try the early morning/Monday approach and bookmark that direct search link someone mentioned. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences!
Join the conversation
The UCC definition of accounts is one of those things that looks simple on paper but gets complicated fast in real situations. Your invoice receivables and credit card receivables definitely qualify as accounts. The lawsuit settlement is the problem child here - that needs to go under general intangibles since it's not from ordinary business operations. Once you separate those out, your filing should go through fine.
Good luck! Make sure to be specific in your descriptions so there's no ambiguity.
And double-check the debtor name while you're at it. That's another common reason for rejections.
I've been following UCC filings for years and this accounts vs general intangibles distinction trips up so many people. The key thing to remember is that the UCC definition of accounts is pretty narrow - it has to be a right to payment that arises from property sold or services rendered in the ordinary course of business. Lawsuit settlements almost never qualify because they're not part of your regular business operations. I'd suggest breaking your collateral description into two clear categories: "accounts, including trade receivables and credit card receivables" and then separately "general intangibles, including litigation proceeds and settlement claims." This should satisfy the SOS requirements and get your filing through.
Marilyn Dixon
Update us on what works! Dealing with entity name variations is such a common problem and would love to know which approach actually gets this resolved.
0 coins
Evelyn Kelly
•Will do! Probably going to try the official letter approach first, then maybe file both versions if that doesn't work quickly enough.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Yes please update! I bookmark these threads for future reference when similar issues come up.
0 coins
Ashley Adams
This is such a frustrating but common issue! I've dealt with similar entity name discrepancies multiple times. Given your tight timeline and the loan size, I'd recommend a two-pronged approach: 1) Immediately request that official clarification letter from Ohio SOS corporate division that Sadie mentioned - submit it in writing with copies of both the charter and database search results, and 2) While waiting for that letter, go ahead and file both versions of the UCC as Laila suggested. The dual filing approach gives you immediate protection while you sort out the "correct" version. For a $2.8M equipment loan, the extra filing fee is definitely worth the peace of mind. Also might be worth checking out that Certana tool others mentioned for future filings to catch these issues upfront. Keep us posted on what works!
0 coins