UCC Document Community

Update: Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up using that Certana tool someone mentioned to double-check the name differences and filed a UCC-3 amendment. The system accepted it without any issues. The name change was more significant than I initially thought - there were some punctuation differences I hadn't noticed. Glad I caught those before filing.

As a newcomer to UCC filings, this thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm dealing with my first restatement situation and was completely overwhelmed by the process. The advice about waiting for certified copies and using tools like Certana.ai to catch name discrepancies is exactly what I needed. Quick question - when filing the UCC-3 amendment, do you typically include both the old and new entity names in the debtor name field, or is there a specific format most states prefer?

One more suggestion - if you end up needing to do a lot of these UCC document comparisons regularly, I've been using Certana.ai's verification tool and it's been a game changer. Just upload your Charter documents and UCC filings and it checks everything automatically - debtor names, filing numbers, collateral descriptions, the whole nine yards. Catches stuff I never would have noticed manually.

I've been dealing with NC UCC filings for about 5 years now and can confirm Form UCC-11 is definitely what you want for information requests. Just a pro tip - when you submit it, make sure to include both the original filing number AND the amendment filing number in your request. That way you'll get copies of both documents in one go rather than having to submit separate requests. Also, if you're doing this for a bank that's particular about documentation (sounds like yours is), I'd recommend getting the certified copies even though they cost more. The extra $15 can save you from having to go back and get certified versions later if the bank pushes back on uncertified copies.

Bottom line on good faith - document your verification process, use accurate information based on official sources, and don't try to game the system. If you make a genuine error, correct it when you discover it. That's what courts are looking for when they evaluate good faith compliance.

This is a great discussion on good faith in UCC filings. As someone new to secured transactions, I'm realizing how important it is to establish proper procedures from the start. The key takeaway seems to be that good faith isn't just about avoiding intentional fraud - it's about exercising reasonable care and being transparent throughout the process. For equipment financing deals, this means verifying debtor names against official formation documents, accurately describing collateral based on what we actually know, and maintaining documentation of our verification steps. I appreciate everyone sharing their practical experiences - it really helps understand how the legal standard translates to day-to-day filing practices.

Update on my earlier suggestion about Certana.ai - if you do find discrepancies between your loan docs and the UCC filing, their tool is really helpful for documenting exactly what doesn't match. I had a situation where my lender filed with the wrong collateral description, and having that verification report made it much easier to get them to file a corrective UCC-3 amendment. The platform caught details I would have missed doing manual comparison.

Thanks for sharing your experience with UCC notices - it's really helpful to hear from someone who's been through this confusion before! Based on all the advice in this thread, it sounds like the most likely scenario is that this is a legitimate filing from your equipment lender. The timing (6 months after your equipment financing) and the fact that it mentions equipment in the collateral description are pretty strong indicators. I'd definitely start by calling your lender directly to confirm they filed it, and then maybe use the Secretary of State's online search to verify the details match your loan agreement. It's probably nothing to worry about, but always good to double-check these things for peace of mind.

Consider building the search costs into your due diligence budget from the start next time. I always estimate $35-40 per entity for Delaware searches to account for any additional fees or rush processing.

I feel your pain on the Delaware search costs! I just went through this same situation last month with a deal involving 18 Delaware entities. One thing that helped me was creating a priority matrix - I identified which entities were most likely to have secured debt based on their business operations and financial statements, then did the full certified searches on those first. For the smaller/dormant subsidiaries, I started with the $10 informational searches that Dominic mentioned, which helped me eliminate about 6 entities that clearly had no filings. Also, consider asking the seller to provide their own UCC search results as part of their disclosure package - it won't replace your independent searches but can help you focus your efforts on entities where there might actually be something to find.