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
Update on my situation - I found the issue! The entity was actually registered as 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, L.L.C.' with periods in the LLC abbreviation. The online system was expecting that exact format including the periods and comma. Finally got the UCC-1 accepted this morning.
It's ridiculous that these systems can't handle basic variations in standard abbreviations. L.L.C. vs LLC should be treated as equivalent.
Glad you got it sorted! These online filing horror stories always end with some microscopic formatting detail that nobody would ever think to check.
This whole thread is why I'm starting to think we need better tools for UCC preparation. The online systems are supposed to streamline the process but they're introducing new types of errors that didn't exist with paper filings. At least rejection letters used to tell you specifically what was wrong.
The irony is that online filing was supposed to reduce errors and speed up processing, but now we're dealing with formatting issues that never mattered before.
I miss the days when you could call the filing office and they'd just tell you over the phone exactly how to format everything correctly.
Join the conversation
Also double-check that you're using the correct entity type designation. Virginia requires the exact designation from the Articles - so if it's 'Corporation' on the Articles but you're using 'Corp.' on the UCC-1, that'll get rejected.
We probably are abbreviating entity types without realizing it. Will need to go back and compare our UCC-1s character by character against the Articles.
That's tedious but necessary. Or use one of those document comparison tools that does it automatically - saves a lot of manual checking time.
Been doing UCC filings in Virginia for 15 years and this has always been their biggest sticking point. The good news is once you figure out their exact naming requirements, your filings go through smoothly. Just takes some upfront effort to get the process right.
Any specific tips for making sure we get it right the first time? We're losing time and money on these rejections.
Create a standardized process - always pull names from the same official source, use the same verification method, and consider automated checking if you do volume. Consistency is key with Virginia UCC Article 9 filings.
Join the conversation
Had this exact problem on a deal in Texas and New Mexico. Turned out the issue was that one state processed a continuation statement but didn't update their database index properly. The lien was still active but didn't show up in name searches, only filing number searches. Database indexing problems are more common than people realize.
Exactly. And if you have access to document verification tools, use those to make sure the filing numbers you found actually correspond to the same original UCC-1.
This thread is making me paranoid about every UCC search I've ever done. How do we trust any of these results?
Look, at the end of the day you need to CYA with multiple verification methods. Manual database searches, certified copies for anything questionable, and maybe one of those automated checking services if you're dealing with complex multi-state situations regularly. The databases aren't perfect but with enough cross-checking you can get reliable results.
Thanks everyone - sounds like the consensus is to use multiple verification methods rather than trusting any single database search. I'll follow up with direct state office contact for the conflicting results.
Smart approach. Better to over-verify than to deal with surprises after closing.
Join the conversation
Another option is to run the debtor name through Certana.ai's document checker - I've used it to verify UCC-1 to entity document alignment and it's pretty thorough at catching name variations that could cause Article 9 problems. Might give you a better sense of how serious the mismatch is before you spend money on legal opinions.
That's a good idea. Sounds like it would be a lot cheaper than getting a legal opinion just to assess the risk.
Yeah exactly. Upload your UCC docs and the entity certificates and it'll flag any inconsistencies. Then you can decide if you need to take further action.
The bottom line is Article 9 puts the burden on secured parties to monitor debtor name changes and file amendments promptly. It's not fair but that's the system we have. I'd file the amendment ASAP and then assess whether you need additional legal coverage for the gap period.
Agree. Better to fix what you can fix now rather than getting paralyzed by what might have gone wrong in the past.
Exactly. And honestly, unless you're dealing with other creditors or a bankruptcy, the technical perfection gap might never matter practically.
Grace Lee
Update: Finally got the corrected UCC-1 accepted using the full current name 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions LLC' exactly as it appears in Texas records. Bank was not happy about the delay but understood it was an imposter rule compliance issue beyond our control. Thanks for all the advice - learned a expensive lesson about double-checking entity names before filing.
0 coins
Mia Roberts
•How long did the whole process take from initial rejection to final acceptance? Trying to set expectations for my own clients.
0 coins
Grace Lee
•About 10 business days total - 3 days to figure out the exact name issue, 2 days to get proper documentation from the borrower, and 5 days for the SOS to process the corrected filing. Could have been faster if we'd caught the name discrepancy upfront.
0 coins
The Boss
This thread is a perfect example of why the imposter rule needs reform. The current system prioritizes computer matching over common sense, and it's creating unnecessary complications for legitimate secured transactions.
0 coins
Evan Kalinowski
•Agreed, but until Article 9 gets updated, we're stuck working within the current imposter rule framework. At least rejection notices are getting more specific about what exactly failed the search algorithm.
0 coins
Victoria Charity
•The automated rejection system does make processing faster overall, even if individual cases like this are frustrating. Manual review would probably create even longer delays.
0 coins