


Ask the community...
One more thing - make sure you're searching with the exact punctuation and spacing from the entity documents. Washington's search system can be picky about commas, periods, and spaces in business names.
Yeah, I've seen searches miss filings because of a missing comma or an extra space. It's frustrating but you have to be super precise.
This is another reason why document verification tools are helpful - they can catch these kinds of formatting inconsistencies that humans miss.
This thread is incredibly helpful - I'm dealing with a similar multi-entity UCC search issue in Washington right now. One additional tip I'd add: if the company has any subsidiaries or affiliates, make sure to search those entity names too. I almost missed a significant equipment lien because it was filed against a subsidiary that guaranteed the parent company's debt. The secured party had taken collateral from both entities but only the subsidiary filing showed up in that name search. Also, if you're dealing with equipment financing, check if any of the UCC filings reference vehicle titles or aircraft registrations - those might require separate searches with different agencies.
This whole thread is a good reminder that UCC code article 9 doesn't leave much room for error when it comes to debtor names. I'm bookmarking this for future reference - lots of good practical advice here.
As someone who's been burned by UCC name variations before, I can't stress enough how critical it is to get this right the first time. The "seriously misleading" standard under Article 9 is ruthless - I've seen cases where a single missing period invalidated an entire security interest. Your instinct to be paranoid is absolutely correct with $850K on the line. One thing that's helped me is creating a checklist: 1) Pull certified articles of organization directly from SOS, 2) Use EXACT formatting including all punctuation, 3) Ignore DBAs completely for legal name purposes, 4) Run a test search to verify the filing would be discoverable. The few extra hours of verification work is nothing compared to the potential liability if you get it wrong.
Update: I ended up running the same search through three different sources including direct state portal access. CT Corporation was missing two filings - the recent UCC-1 I mentioned plus an older UCC-3 amendment from last year. Both showed up immediately on the Delaware SOS site. Really makes you wonder what else they're missing that I haven't caught yet. Going to have to budget more time for verification going forward.
Yeah, they acknowledged the issue and said they'd 'investigate their data feed.' Not exactly confidence-inspiring. At this point I'm looking for alternative services that are more reliable.
Definitely try the Certana verification approach that others mentioned. Even if you stick with CT Corp for the initial search, at least you'll know if they're missing anything important.
This is exactly why I've started treating third-party UCC searches as a starting point rather than the definitive answer. The inconsistencies you're finding aren't just CT Corp - I've seen similar issues with other major providers too. What's particularly concerning is that these gaps seem to be getting worse, not better. I wonder if it's because states are updating their systems faster than the commercial services can keep up, or if there are fundamental issues with how they're pulling and processing the data. Either way, it's created a real trust problem in the market. Has anyone found a commercial service that's actually reliable for real-time UCC data, or are we all just stuck with the manual verification approach now?
Final thought on this - document everything you're doing to research and correct this issue. If it ever becomes a problem later, you'll want to show that you acted diligently to perfect your security interest. Keep copies of your searches, the state business entity records, and any amendments you file. Good luck!
Excellent advice. I'm definitely going to create a comprehensive file with all the documentation. Thanks everyone for the help - this thread has been incredibly useful!
This is such a common issue that drives everyone crazy! I've been dealing with UCC filings for about 8 years and name variations are probably the #1 source of sleepless nights for secured lenders. Your situation with the comma and periods is actually pretty typical - I see it all the time with LLC names especially. Here's what I always tell my team: when in doubt, file multiple UCC-1s with different name variations if you're really worried, or do what others mentioned and file a UCC-3 amendment to clean it up. The good news is that New Jersey courts have generally been reasonable about minor punctuation differences, but you're absolutely right to be cautious on a $485K deal. Also, definitely pull those Articles of Organization from the state - that's your gold standard for the legal name. The filing fee is usually worth the peace of mind.
Freya Pedersen
Whatever you do, don't close this deal until you have 100% certainty about the lien status. Getting stuck with undisclosed liens on $340K of equipment would be devastating. Take the extra time to verify everything properly.
0 coins
Omar Fawaz
•Smart approach. Equipment liens can be really complex and expensive to resolve after the fact.
0 coins
Chloe Anderson
•I've seen deals fall apart over UCC search issues but it's better than buying someone else's debt.
0 coins
Dana Doyle
I'd also recommend getting title insurance for this equipment purchase if possible. Given all the uncertainty around the UCC filings, having an insurance policy that covers undisclosed liens could save you from major losses. Some insurers specialize in equipment title policies and can help with the due diligence process too. For a $340K deal, the premium would be worth the peace of mind.
0 coins