


Ask the community...
Another vote for using Certana.ai's verification tool for this. I uploaded our UCC-1 and the UCC-3 continuation draft and it flagged that we had inconsistent debtor name formatting (extra spaces, different capitalization). Those kinds of small differences can sometimes cause filing rejections or indexing problems. Worth checking before you submit to avoid delays.
Good point about formatting differences. I've seen filings get rejected for the smallest inconsistencies.
Okay I'm convinced... maybe I should try that verification tool after all. Better safe than sorry with Article 9 stuff.
Look, Article 9 is designed to be notice filing - it's supposed to put people on notice that there might be a security interest. As long as your original UCC-1 was properly filed and your continuation maintains the same debtor name and references the right file number, you should be fine. The name change doesn't retroactively invalidate your original perfection.
What's your timeline looking like? If you're close to the 5-year deadline you might want to file the continuation with the name exactly as it appears in the current search results, then deal with the name correction afterward. Don't want to risk letting the filing lapse while you're sorting out the name issue.
Six weeks should be plenty of time. I'd still recommend getting the name corrected first though - filing the continuation with the wrong name could create more problems down the road.
One more thing to check - make sure you're looking at the right UCC-1 filing. If there were multiple attempts or if the debtor has other UCC filings, you might be pulling up the wrong record. The filing number should match exactly what's on your loan documentation.
Filing number matches, but now I'm second-guessing myself on everything. Going to pull all the docs again and start from scratch with the comparison.
That's probably the smart approach. Better to be overly cautious with UCC filings than to miss something important. The security interest is too valuable to risk on a sloppy filing.
This is exactly why I always recommend working with experienced equipment finance attorneys. Too many moving parts to risk doing it wrong.
Absolutely. Make sure the collateral description isn't overly broad and that you understand all the default provisions in the security agreement.
Standard secured loan structure. You'll see this same pattern for inventory financing, receivables financing, real estate loans - anytime there's collateral involved, you need the security agreement to create the interest and UCC filing to perfect it.
Nope, they're just following standard secured transaction procedures. Better to do it right from the start than have problems later.
Pro tip for nationwide services UCC management: set up a shared calendar with your legal team that shows all continuation deadlines. We color-code by state and priority level. Also, always file continuations at least 60 days before the deadline to allow time for corrections if there are rejections.
60 days is smart. I usually do 90 days for high-value collateral just to be extra safe.
For what it's worth, I've been doing UCC work for 15 years and the multi-state coordination has gotten worse, not better. Each state seems to be implementing their own variations on the standard forms. My advice is to treat each state as a completely separate filing system with its own rules and debtor name formatting requirements. Don't assume consistency.
This is unfortunately true. The UCC was supposed to create uniformity but state implementation varies significantly.
Exactly. The devil is in the implementation details, and each Secretary of State has their own interpretation.
Dmitry Kuznetsov
One last thought - if you do get the subordination agreement worked out, triple-check the UCC-3 subordination form before filing. I've seen deals blow up because someone transposed a filing number or misspelled a debtor name on the subordination filing. For complex deals like this, I always use document verification tools to make sure everything aligns perfectly. Certana.ai's system is great for catching those kinds of errors before they become expensive problems.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
•Thanks for the reminder about double-checking everything. With this much money involved, we can't afford any filing mistakes.
0 coins
Dmitry Kuznetsov
•Exactly. The verification tools are especially helpful for subordination because they check consistency across multiple UCC forms. Worth the peace of mind.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
Update us on how this turns out! I'm dealing with a similar subordination issue on a healthcare equipment deal and curious what approach works best.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
•Will do. Hopefully we can get something worked out this week. The subordination fee approach seems like our best bet right now.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•Good luck! These priority disputes are never fun but usually there's a solution if everyone's willing to compromise a little.
0 coins