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
NebulaNova
Whatever you do, don't just resubmit the same description. I made that mistake once and they rejected it again with a nastier letter the second time around.
Smart move. Always better to over-describe than under-describe with general intangibles.
NebulaNova
•Exactly. Rejection letters don't get friendlier with repeat filings.
Paolo Conti
Been dealing with this issue all week on a different deal. Ended up going with 'all general intangibles including but not limited to: (a) intellectual property rights including patents, patent applications, trademarks, trademark applications, copyrights, trade secrets and know-how; (b) customer lists, customer information and databases; (c) contracts, contract rights and accounts receivable; (d) goodwill and business records.' Seems to satisfy most filing offices.
Paolo Conti
•Go for it. Just make sure it matches what's actually in your security agreement. That's the key part.
Amina Diallo
•This is exactly the kind of detailed description that works. Generic 'general intangibles' just doesn't cut it anymore.
Join the conversation
Florida's UCC Article 9 database has been updated recently and they're being much stricter about name matching. Even spacing differences can cause rejections now.
Great, just what we needed - stricter enforcement right when everyone's 2020 filings are coming up for continuation.
Ethan Brown
•At least the online system is faster now. But yeah, the name matching is brutal.
Update us when you figure out what the issue was! These Florida Article 9 name problems are so common but the solutions vary. Would help others facing similar continuation rejections.
Will do! Pulling current Articles now and going to compare every single character. Really appreciate everyone's help on this.
Carmen Ruiz
•Good luck! The 5-year continuation deadline stress is real, especially with that much collateral at stake.
Join the conversation
One more thing - if you ever pay off the loan completely, make sure the lender files a UCC-3 termination statement. I've seen businesses with old terminated loans that never got properly released from the public record. It can cause confusion later.
Great point. And check that they file it within the required timeframe - most states give lenders 20-30 days after payoff.
NeonNomad
•Good to know for the future. Right now I'm just trying to understand what I've gotten myself into.
Emma Davis
Bottom line - blanket UCC filings are standard business practice. Focus on maintaining good payment history and understanding your loan covenants. The filing itself shouldn't impact your daily operations unless you're planning major asset transactions.
Happy to help! These filings look scarier than they actually are in practice.
LunarLegend
•Agreed. Been dealing with UCC filings for 15 years and they're just part of the business lending landscape.
Join the conversation
Andre Dubois
Going back to the Certana tool someone mentioned - I tried it last month and it actually found two UCC-3 amendments that weren't showing up in my manual searches. Really helped with a similar audit situation.
Andre Dubois
•Yes, it goes back pretty far. You just upload your loan documents and it automatically checks everything against the filing records. Much more thorough than manual searching.
CyberSamurai
•I might need to try that too. Getting tired of spending hours on searches that don't turn up everything.
For what it's worth, I've found that searching in the early morning (like 6-7 AM) gives me the most consistent results. The system seems less glitchy then.
Jamal Carter
•Good luck with your audit! Let us know if any of these tips help solve the search issues.
Mei Liu
•Hope you get it sorted out. Search problems are so frustrating when you're under pressure.
Rami Samuels
One thing that helps with standard search logic limitations is understanding how each state handles entity suffixes. Some systems treat 'Inc.' and 'Incorporated' as equivalent, others don't. Some ignore punctuation, others require exact punctuation matches. Learning these quirks for the states you work in regularly can improve your search results.
0 coins
Douglas Foster
•Is there anywhere that documents these state-by-state differences? Would save a lot of trial and error.
0 coins
Rami Samuels
•Not that I know of. Most of it is institutional knowledge you pick up over time. Each SOS office has their own system with its own logic.
0 coins
Nina Chan
The bottom line is that UCC standard search logic wasn't designed for the complexity of modern business structures. Shell companies, holding companies, name changes, mergers - none of that complexity is reflected in search functionality. You have to compensate with broader search strategies and document verification tools to catch what the standard logic misses.
0 coins
Ruby Knight
•Exactly. The UCC system assumes simple, stable business entities that don't change names or restructure. Reality is much messier.
0 coins
Diego Castillo
•And until the states upgrade their systems to handle that complexity, we're stuck with workarounds and manual verification processes.
0 coins