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
Just to add to the confusion - make sure you're also checking for any merged or acquired entities. If the company has been through M&A activity, there might be UCC filings under the old entity names that are still active.
Not really, most of it you learn through experience and making mistakes unfortunately.
The key is being systematic about it. Make a list of every possible name variation and search each one methodically.
I've been doing UCC searches for years and Colorado is definitely one of the more challenging states. The search interface isn't very intuitive and the exact name matching catches people off guard.
Watch out for continuation filings - sometimes they show up separately from the original UCC-1 in the search results, so you need to trace the filing history carefully.
Good point about continuations. I've seen cases where the continuation was filed under a slightly different debtor name than the original UCC-1.
Join the conversation
Are you using the correct entity type designation? Sometimes California expects 'Limited Liability Company' spelled out instead of 'LLC' or vice versa, depending on how it was originally filed in bizfile.
Bizfile sometimes stores both versions, and UCC system might expect whichever one was used in the most recent filing. Worth checking which format appears first in bizfile search results.
This happened to me too. Client's Articles said 'LLC' but they'd filed an amendment using 'Limited Liability Company' and UCC system wanted the amendment version.
UPDATE: Finally got our filing accepted! Turned out the issue was a single character difference - bizfile had 'SERVICES' but we were using 'SERVICE' (no S). The rejection messages never indicated this level of detail. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, especially about using document verification tools to catch these tiny discrepancies.
Perfect example of why document verification tools are worth using. Would have caught that 'SERVICE' vs 'SERVICES' difference immediately and saved weeks of back-and-forth.
Exactly! Will definitely be using better verification processes for future filings. Can't believe such a small typo held up an $847K deal for three weeks.
Join the conversation
Quick question - did your loan agreement require the borrower to notify you before moving the equipment? That could affect your options if they breached a covenant by not telling you about the Kentucky move.
That's a lesson for next time. We always include a covenant requiring 30 days notice before moving equipment to another state.
Good practice. Makes it much easier to maintain perfection when you know about moves in advance.
Bottom line - file in Kentucky ASAP. You're at 3 months already and UCC 9307 doesn't give you any wiggle room past 4 months. Even if there's some argument that the equipment isn't 'normally located' there yet, it's not worth the risk of losing perfection.
You're absolutely right. I'm going to prepare the Kentucky filing this week. Better to be overcautious with UCC 9307 than risk losing our security interest.
Exactly. The filing fee is minimal compared to the risk of having an unperfected security interest.
Join the conversation
Whatever you do, don't just assume the search results are wrong. I've seen too many lenders get burned by that assumption. Get the filed document, verify it matches your intent, and if there's ANY doubt, file the amendment. For a loan that size, the amendment is cheap insurance against perfection challenges.
Exactly right. Never assume - always verify when it comes to UCC filings.
UPDATE: Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice. I pulled the actual filed UCC-1 and it shows the name exactly as we intended without the comma. The search results were just displaying it with auto-added punctuation. I ended up using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned and it confirmed our debtor name matches their current corporate records perfectly. Still thinking about the amendment for extra protection but at least I know our original filing is solid. Great forum - really appreciate all the help!
Perfect outcome. Nice to see someone actually follow through and report back what they found.
Good resolution. You handled it exactly right - verify first, then decide on next steps based on actual facts rather than assumptions.
Keisha Williams
One more thought - if this is holding up your loan closing, you might want to consider filing a protective UCC-1 with the name you're confident about, then amending it later if needed. At least you'd have a filing date locked in.
0 coins
Keisha Williams
•For a debtor name error, you'd typically need to file a new UCC-1. An amendment might not cure a seriously misleading debtor name.
0 coins
Liam Sullivan
•Be careful with that approach. If the original filing is seriously misleading due to the wrong debtor name, a new filing might be safer.
0 coins
Paolo Conti
Update us when you get it resolved! Always curious to hear how these UCC1-304 name issues get sorted out. It's such a common problem but each situation seems to have its own quirks.
0 coins
Mei Chen
•Will do! I'm going to call Delaware tomorrow morning and get the official name, then refile. Hopefully that does the trick.
0 coins
Paolo Conti
•Good luck! I'm sure it'll work out once you have the exact name from the state records.
0 coins