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 another perspective - in some factoring arrangements the original debtor (trucking company) might be called the remitter if they're responsible for collecting payments and remitting them to the factor. But again, this doesn't change the UCC filing parties. Your security interest is still in the receivables owned by the trucking company.
Good point about the collection arrangements. Whether the factor collects directly or the debtor collects and remits doesn't affect the perfection of the security interest through the UCC filing.
Right, the UCC filing is about establishing priority in the collateral, not about defining the operational relationship between the parties.
Malia Ponder
I think the bottom line is that 'remitter' in factoring context is operational/procedural language about who pays whom, when, and how. For UCC filing purposes, stick to the basic elements: who owns the collateral (debtor), who has the security interest (secured party), and what the collateral is (receivables). The remitter terminology is just business process stuff.
Kyle Wallace
•Glad we could help! Factoring agreements can definitely be confusing with all the specialized terms. But the UCC side is usually pretty standard once you identify the core parties and collateral.
Ryder Ross
•This was a helpful thread. I bookmark these discussions because similar terminology questions come up regularly in different types of financing arrangements.
Join the conversation
I've started using a spreadsheet to track all the different name variations I search for each debtor. Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana are the worst for this - you really need to be methodical about covering all the bases.
Sean Doyle
•That's a good system. I should start doing something similar instead of just winging it each time.
Yeah it's saved me multiple times. Include common abbreviations, with/without punctuation, and any DBAs or trade names.
Zara Rashid
Update: I tried the Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier and it actually found one additional UCC-1 that I missed. The debtor name on that filing had a slightly different format ("ABC Manufacturing, L.L.C." with periods) that wasn't showing up in my manual searches. Thanks for the tip!
Glad it helped! Those little punctuation differences are killer in Kentucky's system.
Luca Romano
•Nice - always good to hear when someone finds a tool that actually works for this stuff.
Join the conversation
Paolo Rizzo
Update us when you get the filing through! I'm dealing with a similar situation in Vermont and want to know if using the amendment format works for you.
Carmen Ortiz
•Will do! Planning to file tomorrow using the debtor name format from the 2022 amendment. Keeping my fingers crossed.
QuantumQuest
•Good luck! Vermont can be tricky but once you get the format right it usually goes through smoothly.
Amina Sy
This thread is a perfect example of why UCC filing is more art than science sometimes. Every state has its quirks and Vermont definitely has more than its share. The key is finding experienced people who've dealt with these specific issues before.
The learning curve never ends. That's why forums like this are so valuable - shared knowledge from people who've been through the same headaches.
Absolutely. And why automated verification tools are becoming essential. Too many variables to track manually across all 50 states.
Join the conversation
Going back to the original question - the UCC isn't really uniform because it was designed as model legislation, not federal law. Each state adopts and modifies it as they see fit. The 'uniform' part was more aspirational than literal.
That's actually really helpful context. I always wondered why it was called uniform when it clearly isn't.
Yeah, it's more like 'mostly similar' than actually uniform. Better than having 50 completely different systems but not by as much as you'd hope.
Emma Davis
just wanted to say thanks for posting this, thought i was going crazy with all the different state requirements. good to know its not just me struggling with this stuff
Definitely not just you! It's validating to know other people are dealing with the same issues.
Freya Christensen
Update on the Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier - I actually used it again yesterday for a similar name variation situation. What's really helpful is that it doesn't just check for exact matches, it flags potential variations you might not have thought of. Caught a filing under an abbreviated version of the business name that I wouldn't have searched for otherwise.
0 coins
Javier Cruz
•That automated variation checking sounds really useful. I'm definitely going to look into that tool. This manual process is giving me gray hairs.
0 coins
Nia Harris
•Same here, bookmarking this thread. The name variation thing has burned me before and I could use something that makes it more systematic.
0 coins
Isabella Costa
Just to wrap up with some practical advice - for your immediate situation, I'd prioritize getting that $150K lien sorted out since it's the biggest issue. Contact the secured party directly, check if it should have lapsed already, and if it was paid off, get them to file a UCC-3 termination ASAP. The name variation searches are important for due diligence, but that specific lien is your biggest closing obstacle right now.
0 coins
Javier Cruz
•You're absolutely right, I need to focus on the biggest issue first. The borrower's attorney is supposed to call the bank today to sort out the termination situation. Hopefully we can get this resolved before the closing gets delayed.
0 coins
Emma Thompson
•Good luck with the closing! Let us know how it turns out. These name variation issues are so common that your experience might help others who run into the same thing.
0 coins