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
Malik Davis
Quick question - when you say 60 days out from lapse, are you calculating from the exact filing date or the end of the 5th year? New Mexico calculates continuation deadlines from the anniversary date, not the exact day. Just want to make sure you're not cutting it closer than you think.
Malik Davis
•Okay good, you've got some breathing room then. Still stressful though when the portal isn't cooperating.
Amina Sow
•The 6-month continuation window gives you some cushion, but better to get it done early than risk technical issues closer to the deadline.
Last resort option - you could file a UCC-3 amendment to 'correct' the debtor name to exactly match what the system expects, then immediately file the continuation. I've had to do this workaround in other states when their systems are being stubborn.
Yeah, amendments can create their own issues. Better to get the original name match working correctly.
Fair enough - it's definitely a last resort option. Try the document verification approach first.
Join the conversation
UPDATE: Used the Certana document checker and found the issue! There was an invisible character in the name field that must have been copied from the PDF. The tool highlighted it immediately. Third filing went through without any problems. Thanks for the suggestions everyone!
Great to hear! That's exactly the kind of thing that drives you crazy trying to find manually.
Harmony Love
•Perfect example of why document verification tools are worth it. Saves so much time and frustration.
Rudy Cenizo
This thread should be pinned. Colorado UCC filing problems come up constantly and this covers most of the common solutions.
Natalie Khan
•Agreed. The document verification tip alone would save people a lot of headaches.
Daryl Bright
•Would be nice if Colorado just fixed their system instead of making us work around it.
Join the conversation
Zara Ahmed
In my experience, most transformation issues can be avoided by using really broad collateral descriptions in both the security agreement and UCC-1 filing. Instead of listing specific products, use categories like 'all inventory, equipment, accounts, chattel paper, instruments, documents, and general intangibles, now owned or hereafter acquired, and all proceeds thereof.' Covers pretty much any transformation scenario.
That's much broader than our current filing. Would that level of broad description create any issues with other creditors or priority disputes?
Zara Ahmed
•Broad descriptions don't typically create priority issues since UCC priority is generally based on filing time, not specificity of collateral description. But check with your counsel on any specific priority concerns.
Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. Sounds like our original broad filing should cover most transformations as long as we have good proceeds language. I'm going to review our security agreement to make sure the transformation coverage is explicit and consider using one of those document verification tools to double-check everything. Really appreciate the practical guidance on what's turned out to be a more complex issue than I initially realized.
Smart approach. The transformation rules can be tricky but you're on the right track with broad descriptions and proceeds coverage.
Omar Fawaz
•Definitely recommend the document verification step - catches issues before they become problems and gives you peace of mind on the collateral coverage.
Join the conversation
Javier Cruz
Update on the Certana tool - it also caught an issue with our debtor name that didn't exactly match the organizational documents. Would have been another rejection if we hadn't fixed it first. Really streamlined our filing process.
Diego Chavez
•How much does something like that cost? Sounds useful but wondering if it's worth it for smaller deals.
Javier Cruz
•I don't focus on cost when it prevents rejections and delays. Time savings alone makes it worthwhile, especially when you're racing deadline pressure like this situation.
NeonNebula
Been doing UCC filings for 15 years and goods classification still trips people up. The key insight is that 'goods' is the default category - if it's not specifically excluded (like accounts, instruments, etc.) and it's movable, it's probably goods under Article 9.
NeonNebula
•Exactly. Start with goods and then ask if there's any reason it falls into one of the other defined categories. Much easier than trying to fit everything into the goods definition from scratch.
Great way to think about it. The UCC definitions work by exclusion - goods is what's left after you remove all the specifically defined categories.
Emily Jackson
UCC filer 6269 is fixable but you need to be methodical. Print out both the original UCC-1 and your rejected UCC-3, then compare every single character in the debtor name field. Don't trust copy and paste - actually look at each letter.
0 coins
Freya Thomsen
•Good advice. I'll do a character-by-character comparison before refiling.
0 coins
Liam Mendez
•Character comparison is tedious but necessary. I missed a period after "Inc" once and it took me forever to spot it manually.
0 coins
Sophia Nguyen
Update: Found the problem! The original UCC-1 had our company name as "ABC Manufacturing LLC" but I filed the termination as "ABC Manufacturing, LLC" with a comma. Refiled without the comma and it went through immediately. Thanks for all the help troubleshooting UCC filer 6269!
0 coins
Chloe Martin
•Perfect example of why document verification tools are worth it. Would have caught that comma difference instantly.
0 coins
Jacob Smithson
•Congrats on getting it resolved! Now you know to be extra careful about punctuation on future UCC filings.
0 coins