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
I actually ran into something similar and used Certana.ai to verify all my documents were consistent before filing. It caught a bunch of small discrepancies I never would have noticed manually. Really saved my butt when the debtor tried to challenge the lien later. The automated document checking is incredibly thorough.
That sounds like exactly what we needed from the beginning. How easy is it to use?
Super simple - just upload your PDFs and it does all the cross-checking automatically. Takes a few minutes and flags any inconsistencies. Would have caught your name issue immediately.
Update us when you get the amendment filed and processed. This kind of case study is really valuable for others dealing with similar name discrepancy issues. The more examples we have of how banks and courts handle these situations, the better prepared we all are.
Thanks for sharing this situation. It's a good reminder for all of us to be extra careful about debtor name accuracy from the start.
Agreed, this thread has been really educational about the importance of name matching in UCC filings.
Join the conversation
Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious to hear what the actual issue was since these name formatting problems are so common.
Will do! Going to try the copy-paste method and maybe check out that document verification tool. Thanks everyone for the suggestions.
Good luck! These portal issues are frustrating but usually something small once you find it.
Just another thought - if this is for an equipment loan, double-check that your collateral description matches the original too. Sometimes the system flags multiple issues but only shows you the first one.
Yeah, the error messages aren't always comprehensive. Fix one thing and sometimes a new error appears.
That's why those document comparison tools are so helpful - they catch everything at once instead of playing whack-a-mole with errors.
Join the conversation
Update: We ended up using the Certana tool mentioned earlier and it caught the issue immediately - we had 'Inc.' in our charter but were using 'Incorporated' on the UCC-1. Such a small thing but it was causing all the rejections. Factor accepted the filing within hours and we closed the facility on schedule. Thanks for the help everyone!
Perfect example of why precision matters so much with factoring deals. Congrats on getting it closed!
This is exactly why I love these forums. Real solutions from people who've been through the same problems.
Great outcome! For anyone else dealing with factoring UCC issues, remember that factors typically want their security interest to be first in line. Make sure you're not filing behind any existing liens that could complicate the priority position.
True. Factors are very particular about lien priority. They want to make sure they're getting paid first from the receivables.
And if there are existing liens, the factor might require subordination agreements or other documentation to protect their position.
Join the conversation
One more thing to consider - make sure you're also checking for any trade names or DBAs that might be relevant to your collateral description. Sometimes companies operate under different names than their legal entity name, and that can affect how you describe the collateral or where you file.
The equipment is all titled under the legal entity name, so I think we're good there. But thanks for the reminder - I'll double-check the collateral records to be sure.
DBA issues can definitely complicate UCC filings. Always worth checking the full business name registration records.
Just wanted to follow up and say I had a similar name discrepancy issue last week and used that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. It definitely helped catch a middle initial that was missing from my security agreement compared to the charter. Filed with the corrected name and got acceptance within 24 hours. Definitely recommend checking your documents before filing.
Good to hear another positive experience with document verification. These tools are getting pretty sophisticated.
Thanks for the follow-up! I'm definitely going to run my docs through a verification check before submitting. This thread has been super helpful.
Madison Tipne
I actually had a client situation where understanding these article reference differences became crucial during a bankruptcy proceeding. The trustee questioned our perfection because our security agreement referenced Article 9A while our UCC-1 just said Article 9. We ended up using Certana.ai to generate a comprehensive document comparison report that showed the consistent secured transaction framework across all our filings, which satisfied the court that our lien was properly perfected despite the reference numbering differences.
0 coins
Hugo Kass
•Bankruptcy trustees love to challenge perfection on technical grounds. Having documentation that shows everything aligns properly is crucial.
0 coins
Madison Tipne
•The verification report was key to resolving the dispute quickly. Without it, we might have faced an expensive legal battle over what was ultimately just a numbering system difference.
0 coins
Holly Lascelles
Thanks everyone for the clarification on this. I was getting worried there were special Article 9A procedures I didn't know about, but it sounds like standard UCC filing practices apply regardless of the numbering system the state uses.
0 coins
Laila Fury
•You've got it. Focus on the core requirements - debtor name accuracy, proper collateral description, correct filing office - and you'll be fine.
0 coins
Hazel Garcia
•Agreed. This discussion has been really helpful for understanding that the substance doesn't change even when the reference numbers vary.
0 coins