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 curious - how did you find out about the name change? Did they notify you or did you discover it some other way?
Actually discovered it by accident during a routine asset search. They didn't notify us directly, which is another red flag.
That's troubling. Most states don't require debtors to notify secured parties of name changes, but good faith would suggest they should.
Bottom line - get that UCC-3 amendment filed immediately. Commercial tort claims are already challenging enough to perfect without adding debtor name issues to the mix. Don't let a procedural issue jeopardize your security interest in a $340K claim.
Agreed. And document everything about when you discovered the name change and when you filed the amendment. Could be important if priority issues arise later.
Yes, create a clear paper trail. Also consider whether you need to file in multiple states if the debtor has assets in other jurisdictions.
Join the conversation
Thanks everyone - this clears up my confusion completely. I'll focus on the current UCC-1/UCC-3 forms for our equipment deal and ignore the UCC-5 references in the old legal files. Appreciate the quick responses and historical context!
Glad we could help! Good luck with your equipment financing deal.
Feel free to post back if you run into any issues with the actual filing process. This forum is pretty good at troubleshooting SOS portal problems.
Just as a final note - if you do acquisition work regularly, it's worth creating a reference sheet of discontinued UCC forms so you don't waste time researching obsolete requirements. UCC-5, UCC-2, and several others were eliminated when Article 9 was revised. Keeps things simpler in the long run.
That's a great idea. I'm going to make a quick reference card for our team since we see these old form numbers fairly regularly in M&A due diligence.
Join the conversation
Don't overlook the possibility that the similar equipment descriptions might be referring to the same collateral if there was a transfer of the security interest. Sometimes when loans get sold or assigned, the new secured party files a new UCC-1 instead of just filing an assignment. You could end up with multiple filings against the same assets.
That would create a real mess for determining priority. How would you even sort that out?
You'd need to trace the chain of assignments and see if there are any UCC-3 terminations that clear up the duplicates. Not fun but necessary.
Update: Thanks for all the advice. I ended up getting certified copies of the formation documents and pulling the full UCC filings. Turns out two of the filings were against the same entity (the comma difference was just a typo in one of them) but the third was against a completely different company with a similar name. The equipment descriptions were different enough that there's no overlap with our intended collateral. Used one of the document checking tools mentioned here to verify everything matched up before we submitted our UCC-1. Filing went through without any issues and we're properly perfected now.
Which document checking tool did you end up using? Always looking for ways to streamline the verification process.
Ended up with Certana.ai - it was pretty straightforward to use and caught the name discrepancy issue right away. Definitely saved time compared to doing all the manual cross-checking.
Join the conversation
Just wanted to follow up on the Certana.ai suggestion from earlier - I tried their document checker after seeing it mentioned here and it would have caught your exact issue. It flagged the comma discrepancy between charter and UCC-1 immediately. Definitely worth trying for future filings to avoid these rejections.
How much does it cost though? Our firm does a lot of UCC filings and budget is always a concern.
I focus on the value it provides - catching rejections before they happen saves way more time and hassle than the cost. Plus it's way faster than manually comparing documents.
Update us on whether the no-comma version works! I've got a similar situation coming up and would love to know if the database search trick actually solves these UCC-1 instruction headaches.
Following this thread too. The UCC-1 instructions confusion is real and it's helpful to see practical solutions that actually work.
Same here. This kind of practical advice is way more useful than just reading the official instructions that don't seem to match reality.
Isabella Brown
Try using wildcards in your search - PA's system sometimes requires partial matches. Use * at the end of debtor names or filing numbers to broaden the search results.
0 coins
StarStrider
•I didn't know PA supported wildcards in their search. That might help if there are formatting differences I'm not seeing.
0 coins
Isabella Brown
•It's not well documented but it works. Especially useful when you're not sure about exact spacing or punctuation in debtor names.
0 coins
Maya Patel
UPDATE: Just tried the Certana document checker someone mentioned earlier and it immediately caught an issue with one of our continuations - there was a slight difference in how the debtor address was formatted between the original UCC-1 and our continuation form. No wonder PA's search was acting weird. The verification tool made it obvious what the problem was.
0 coins
Aisha Abdullah
•Address formatting discrepancies are super common and can cause all sorts of search issues. Good catch!
0 coins
Maya Patel
•Yeah, it was just a minor difference - 'Street' vs 'St.' - but apparently enough to mess up the database indexing.
0 coins