


Ask the community...
Quick question - if the UCC search shows active filings, does that automatically kill the deal? Or are there ways to work around existing security interests?
Not necessarily a deal killer. You can negotiate with the seller to pay off the secured debt, get a release from the lender, or adjust the purchase price. The key is knowing about it before closing so you can address it properly.
I just went through this process last month for a warehouse purchase. Found three UCC-1 filings against forklifts and racking systems. Two had been terminated properly with UCC-3 filings, but one was still active. Seller had to provide a satisfaction letter from the lender before we could close. Definitely worth the extra week of due diligence to avoid future headaches.
How long did it take the seller to get the satisfaction letter? I'm worried about delays affecting my closing timeline.
For what it's worth, I've had good luck with Certana.ai for exactly this type of verification issue. Upload your search results and original documents and it will flag any missing pieces in the filing chain. Really helpful for catching name variations or missed continuations that could cause problems down the road.
I was skeptical about automated tools for UCC verification but honestly they're getting pretty sophisticated. Especially for catching the little details that human reviewers might miss.
At this point I'm willing to try anything that can give me confidence in these search results. The stakes are too high to guess wrong.
One more thing to check - make sure you're searching the correct time period. Tennessee's online system sometimes defaults to showing only recent filings. You might need to expand your search date range to capture all the relevant continuation statements.
Yeah, for a complete picture you want to search back at least 6-7 years to catch any original filings and their continuation history.
I had a similar situation last year where the search showed multiple name variations. Turns out the company had filed some documents with a comma and some without, so the state database had both versions. I ended up filing under the name that matched their most recent annual report. No issues with the filing.
Annual reports are usually more current than the original formation docs too.
Just to add another perspective - I've also used that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier and it's really helpful for this exact situation. You upload the debtor's charter and your UCC-1 draft and it instantly flags any name discrepancies. Takes like 30 seconds and gives you confidence you've got the names right. For a $340K deal, seems like a no-brainer to double-check everything.
Sounds like a lot of people are using this tool. Might have to check it out for our next big filing.
Yeah, seems like it's becoming pretty popular for UCC work. The name matching thing is always such a pain point.
UCC formation 1952, but can we talk about continuation deadlines? I'm getting paranoid about missing the 5-year mark and losing my lien priority.
The UCC was formed in 1952. For your current filing, just make sure you're using the most recent forms and following your state's electronic filing requirements. The historical context is interesting but won't affect your modern filing procedures.
Thank you everyone for all the helpful responses! I feel much more confident about proceeding with my filing now. The 1952 formation date answers my client's question, and all the practical advice about debtor names and collateral descriptions is invaluable.
Philip Cowan
Just want to say thanks for posting this because I never realized how important exact name matching was for UCC filings. Going to double-check all our equipment loans now.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Smart move. Debtor name errors are one of the most common ways UCC filings become legally insufficient.
0 coins
Caesar Grant
Update us on what happens! If you're right about the name mismatch this could be a huge win. Document everything and consider filing a wrongful seizure claim if their UCC-1 is actually defective.
0 coins
Naila Gordon
•Good luck! Sounds like you have a strong case if the name issue is as clear as it seems.
0 coins
Cynthia Love
•Hope you nail them for this intimidation tactic. Lenders who play fast and loose with statutory UCC requirements need to be held accountable.
0 coins