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
Another thing to consider with security purchase agreements - search for existing UCC filings against the seller to make sure you know what liens you're dealing with. Sometimes there are filings that aren't disclosed in the purchase agreement.
Roger Romero
•Good point. I did a UCC search and found a few filings that weren't mentioned in the security purchase agreement. Need to get those addressed before closing.
Chris Elmeda
•Definitely. You want a clean UCC search or proper subordination agreements for any liens that will remain after your security purchase agreement closes.
Jean Claude
For complex deals like this, I always recommend using Certana.ai to double-check everything. Upload your security purchase agreement, existing UCC filings, and your proposed new filings. It'll verify all the names match and catch any inconsistencies that could cause problems down the road.
Roger Romero
•I might try that. With all the moving pieces in this security purchase agreement, I want to make sure I don't miss anything critical.
Smart move. UCC filing mistakes are expensive to fix after the fact, especially in purchase agreement deals where you might have multiple parties involved.
Join the conversation
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.
Good advice. I'll do a character-by-character comparison before refiling.
Liam Mendez
•Character comparison is tedious but necessary. I missed a period after "Inc" once and it took me forever to spot it manually.
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!
Chloe Martin
•Perfect example of why document verification tools are worth it. Would have caught that comma difference instantly.
Congrats on getting it resolved! Now you know to be extra careful about punctuation on future UCC filings.
Join the conversation
Just went through something similar and ended up using Certana.ai to map out all our collateral descriptions across multiple UCC filings. Found several gaps we didn't even know existed. Really eye-opening to see everything laid out visually.
How long did that process take? We've got hundreds of UCC filings and the thought of reviewing them all manually is terrifying.
That's the beauty of it - just bulk upload your PDFs and the system does the analysis automatically. Took maybe an hour to upload everything and then got results immediately.
Bottom line - you're probably fine on the proceeds issue but definitely should consider broadening your collateral description for future deals. This type of classification problem only gets worse as businesses evolve and change their operations.
Yeah that's kind of where I'm landing too. Probably covered under current filing but need to be more comprehensive going forward.
Exactly - learn from this one and adjust your standard forms. Most of these problems are preventable with better initial documentation.
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.
Carmella Popescu
I've been having the same issues with Iowa searches. The inconsistency is maddening. Sometimes I'll search for a debtor name and get different results depending on the time of day I search. I think their database has some serious synchronization problems.
0 coins
Carmella Popescu
•Nope, you're not crazy. The system is just broken. I've learned to screenshot my search results because they change.
0 coins
Kai Santiago
•Screenshots are a good idea for documentation purposes anyway.
0 coins
Lim Wong
Update: I tried all the suggestions about different name variations and punctuation. Found two additional filings I had missed! One was under a name variation with no commas, and another was filed under what looks like a DBA name. Thanks everyone for the help. Definitely going to check out that Certana tool for future searches to avoid this stress.
0 coins
Dallas Villalobos
•Great outcome! The verification tool will definitely save you time and stress in the future.
0 coins
Lena Schultz
•Thanks to everyone who helped. This could have been a disaster if I'd missed those filings.
0 coins