


Ask the community...
Update: Called Oklahoma SOS this morning and they confirmed the comma difference would cause rejection. Filing the amendment today and will do the continuation once it's processed. Thanks everyone for the guidance - this forum saved me from a major headache!
Great to hear you got clarity from Oklahoma SOS! That's exactly why I always recommend calling the filing office when there's any doubt about their requirements. A quick phone call can save weeks of back-and-forth with rejections. Make sure to keep notes on what they told you in case you need to reference it later. Good luck with the amendment filing!
Bottom line - don't overcomplicate your UCC-1 filing by bringing in concepts from the underlying purchase transaction. The security interest exists independently of how you acquired the collateral. Focus on clear collateral identification and proper debtor naming. That's what matters for perfection.
This thread perfectly illustrates why so many people get tripped up on international equipment deals! I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and still see experienced attorneys mixing these up. The key insight that helped me early on was realizing that incoterms are about the SALE relationship (buyer-seller), while UCC is about the CREDIT relationship (borrower-lender). They're completely separate legal frameworks that just happen to involve the same physical assets. For your $180K equipment, stick to standard UCC collateral description practices - be specific about the machinery type, include serial numbers if available, and don't reference how you acquired it. The FOB Hamburg terms served their purpose during the international sale but have zero relevance to your security interest perfection.
Really appreciate this perspective from someone with 15 years of experience! The sale vs credit relationship distinction is brilliant - that's exactly the mental framework I needed. I kept trying to find connections between the two when they're addressing completely different legal questions. Your point about the FOB terms serving their purpose and now being irrelevant to the security interest makes perfect sense. Going to focus purely on the UCC Article 9 requirements for the collateral description and stop overthinking the purchase history.
OK so just to summarize for the original poster: No signature needed on UCC-1 form, electronic filing handles that. BUT make sure you have proper authorization in your security agreement. AND verify debtor name matches state records exactly. Your lender's paralegal was probably thinking of the security agreement signatures, not the UCC filing itself.
As someone who's been handling UCC filings for about 5 years now, I can confirm what everyone's saying - no signatures required on the UCC-1 itself for electronic filing. The confusion usually comes from mixing up the security agreement (which definitely needs signatures) with the UCC filing (which doesn't). For your $180K equipment deal, just make sure your loan docs have clear language authorizing the UCC filing and you're good to go. Electronic filing systems have made this so much simpler than the old paper days. One less thing to chase down signatures for!
Look, Florida UCC filing fees suck but at least the state's filing system works reliably. I'll take higher fees over the nightmare systems some other states are running where filings disappear into the void.
True, reliability is worth something. Just wish they'd given us more heads up about the fee changes so we could adjust client expectations.
The reliability is exactly why I stick with tools like Certana.ai for document prep. Upload your PDFs, verify everything's consistent, then file with confidence knowing it won't get rejected for preventable errors.
This fee increase is really frustrating, especially with no advance notice. I've been doing UCC filings for about 3 years now and was just getting comfortable with the cost structure. Now I have to go back to all my templates and update the fee estimates I give clients. Has anyone found a good way to track these changes across different states? I'm starting to think I need a spreadsheet just to keep up with filing fees since they seem to change without warning.
Liam Fitzgerald
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar EIDL termination issue and want to see what approach works.
0 coins
PixelWarrior
•Same here. These EIDL terminations are turning into a nightmare for so many businesses.
0 coins
Amara Adebayo
•The SBA really should have standardized the UCC-1 filing process better from the beginning. Would have saved everyone these headaches.
0 coins
Yuki Kobayashi
This exact same thing happened to us! The original EIDL UCC-1 had our company name without the comma, but our current legal docs show it with the comma. What worked for us was pulling the actual original UCC-1 filing from the Secretary of State website and copying the debtor name character-for-character onto the UCC-3 termination form. Don't try to "fix" the name - just match exactly what's on the original filing. It's counterintuitive but that's how the system works. Also, if you're in a rush, definitely pay for expedited processing if your state offers it. We got ours processed same-day for an extra $35 fee. Good luck!
0 coins