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 a thought - are you including any organizational identifiers that might not belong? Like some people put 'a Georgia corporation' after the company name which will definitely get rejected.
Yeah keep it to just the bare legal name. No extra identifiers or descriptions in that field.
I made that mistake once and wasted two days trying to figure out why it kept getting rejected. The name field should be just the name, nothing else.
Emma Davis
SUCCESS! It was exactly what several of you suggested - I had 'Inc' instead of 'Inc.' with the period. Found the exact formatting in the Georgia business entity search and the filing went through immediately. Thanks everyone for the help! That Certana verification tool definitely would have caught this right away.
Ravi Sharma
•Perfect! Those little details are exactly why the document verification exists. Saves so much time and frustration.
NebulaNomad
•Congrats on getting through Georgia's system. Now you know for next time!
Join the conversation
NC Secretary of State has been pretty good about name matching in my experience, but they're also very literal. If the corporate name has a comma, use the comma. If it doesn't, don't add one. I learned this the hard way when a filing got rejected because I added punctuation that wasn't in the official name.
This is really helpful. So you're saying stick exactly to what's in the Articles of Incorporation?
Exactly. Don't try to 'fix' or standardize the name - use it exactly as it appears in the corporate records.
Noah Lee
The safest approach is probably to search under all name variations first to see what's already filed, then use the official corporate name for your new filing. If you're really worried about conflicts, you might want to file a UCC-1 under the official name and then do amendments that reference the other variations, but that's probably overkill unless you have a specific reason to think there's confusion in the marketplace.
Thanks, this gives me a good game plan. I think I'll start with comprehensive searches and then verify everything matches before filing.
Noah Lee
•Good plan. Better to spend a little extra time on verification than deal with the nightmare of an invalid security interest later.
Join the conversation
Maya Patel
UPDATE: Tried the UCC search approach and found the issue! The system search shows the debtor name as 'Northeast Construction L.L.C.' with periods, which is different from both our charter and what I thought was on the original filing. Using that exact format with periods just got my continuation accepted. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
Emma Garcia
•Perfect example of why the search function is so useful for double-checking name formats. I'll remember that trick for future filings.
Ava Kim
•Congrats on getting it resolved! This thread is going to be helpful for anyone else dealing with Maine's picky name formatting requirements.
This whole thread is a perfect example of why document verification tools are becoming essential for UCC work. I started using Certana.ai after similar headaches with multi-state filings, and it's been a game-changer for catching these exact formatting issues before they cause rejections. Just upload your docs and it instantly flags any inconsistencies.
Layla Mendes
•I've heard good things about automated verification tools. Might be worth the investment given how much time these filing issues can waste.
Especially when you're dealing with multiple states that all have different quirks. Having a tool that can spot the formatting differences automatically would save so much frustration.
Join the conversation
Connor Byrne
For what it's worth, I've had better luck with CT Corporation's search service than CSC lately. Their data seems more current, especially for Texas and California filings.
Yara Abboud
•Good to know. Might be worth getting quotes from multiple search providers and rotating between them.
PixelPioneer
•The problem is switching providers mid-deal can create consistency issues. Better to stick with one but verify the critical results.
Update: Reached out to CSC and they confirmed there was a data sync issue with Texas filings from mid-December. They're working on updating their database but it could take another week. In the meantime they recommended verifying Texas searches directly with the SOS database.
Amina Sy
•This is exactly why I always keep backup verification methods. Can't rely on any single source completely.
Appreciate everyone's input on this. Going to implement some of the verification procedures mentioned here to avoid future headaches.
Emma Davis
Has anyone used the new Kansas electronic filing system? I'm still doing paper filings because I don't trust their online portal yet.
0 coins
Malik Johnson
•The electronic system works fine once you get used to it. Faster processing and you get immediate confirmation.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•I had issues with PDF uploads on their system last year but it seems more stable now.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
One more vote for double-checking everything before filing. Kansas has gotten stricter about rejections lately. I use Certana.ai now to verify my UCC documents match corporate records exactly - catches things I always missed doing manual comparisons. Upload your LLC docs and UCC-1 together and it shows any mismatches instantly.
0 coins
Amara Nnamani
•Two recommendations for that tool now - might be worth trying given the tight deadline. Thanks everyone for the Kansas-specific advice!
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•Yeah that document verification catches stuff you'd never notice manually. Especially with Kansas being picky about exact name matches.
0 coins