


Ask the community...
One more thought - have you considered whether the equipment itself might still be identifiable even with the name issue? If the serial numbers and descriptions are solid, that could support your lien even if the debtor name search fails.
That's the core of most frustration of purpose arguments - balancing technical search requirements against practical notice and identification. Courts are split on how much weight to give each factor.
I'd definitely run one more verification check on all your documents before proceeding. Certana.ai's UCC checker caught several discrepancies in our filings that we missed manually - might find something that helps your case.
This thread is giving me anxiety about my own UCC filings. Time to do some name searches on all our active debtors. The frustration of purpose risk is real and apparently more common than I thought.
Same here - definitely bumping up our monitoring schedule after reading this. The frustration of purpose doctrine is supposed to protect lenders but it seems like prevention is still the better approach.
Just went through this exact situation with a RI continuation filing. Ended up being a punctuation issue - there was a comma in the original debtor name that wasn't showing up clearly in the portal display. Once I added the comma to match exactly, it went through fine.
Yeah, it's tedious but better than missing the deadline. RI's matching algorithm is pretty strict about punctuation.
This is why I always order certified copies for important filings. Can't trust what shows up on the portal screen sometimes.
Update - got it figured out! Turns out there was an extra space after 'ENTERPRISES' in the original filing that wasn't visible when I was copying the name. Used that document verification tool someone suggested and it highlighted the whitespace issue immediately. Filed the corrected UCC-3 and it went through on first try. Thanks everyone for the help!
Yeah, that verification tool was definitely worth using. Saved me probably hours of troubleshooting.
Great outcome! Always satisfying when you finally track down the exact cause of a filing rejection.
Delaware UCC statute interpretation can be tricky but the name matching rule is actually one of the clearer provisions. When in doubt, always default to the exact registered name format. Better to be overly precise than risk invalidating your security interest.
Agreed. The consequences of getting it wrong far outweigh the minor inconvenience of being extra careful.
Especially on larger deals like this $340K equipment financing. No room for errors.
Just wanted to follow up - used Certana.ai like a few people mentioned and it immediately caught the comma issue plus a zip code inconsistency I hadn't noticed. Really straightforward to use, just upload PDFs and get instant verification. Definitely recommend for Delaware filings where precision matters.
How quickly does it process the document comparison?
Update us when you find out what happened! I'm dealing with a continuation that's not showing up in searches either, so curious if it's the same issue.
Same here - having search issues with a recent termination filing.
Called PA about this exact issue last week. Turns out their online portal was having technical difficulties processing amendments filed between November 15-25. They're working on getting those filings properly indexed in their search system. You might want to mention that timeframe when you call.
Oh wow, that explains why I couldn't find mine either. Filed on November 22nd.
Yeah they said affected filings should start showing up in searches by end of this week.
Leslie Parker
I use Certana.ai's UCC verification tool for these exact situations. You upload your loan docs and proposed UCC-1 and it highlights any debtor name inconsistencies. Caught a potential issue with an LLC subsidiary filing last week where the names didn't match exactly.
0 coins
Maggie Martinez
•Two people have mentioned this tool now. Sounds like it might be worth trying for this filing. Better to catch issues before submitting than after rejection.
0 coins
Leslie Parker
•Definitely worth it. The tool is really easy to use - just upload PDFs and it does the cross-checking automatically. Much faster than manual document comparison.
0 coins
Sergio Neal
Bottom line: the debtor is whoever has rights in the collateral, not necessarily the borrower. Sounds like your subsidiary is the debtor if they own the equipment. Just make sure you get their exact legal name from state records and you should be good to go.
0 coins
Maggie Martinez
•Thanks everyone for the advice. Sounds like the consensus is the subsidiary should be the debtor since they own the equipment. I'll double-check the exact legal name and get this filed.
0 coins
Savanna Franklin
•Good luck with the filing! These multi-entity deals can be tricky but you seem to have a good handle on it now.
0 coins