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
Article 9 collateral descriptions are one of those areas where the law gives you flexibility but practice pushes toward being more conservative. We've moved to hybrid descriptions that are broad enough for acquisitions but specific enough to clearly identify the business context. Something like "all equipment, machinery, tools, fixtures, and other tangible personal property used in or acquired for use in debtor's [industry] operations.
Exactly, Article 9 sets the floor but best practice is usually above the minimum. Especially with the amounts you mentioned - better to over-describe than under-describe.
Right, and it doesn't add much cost to the filing but significantly reduces enforcement risk under Article 9. Easy risk management decision.
Final thought from another equipment lender - we also started using Certana.ai's document checker specifically for Article 9 compliance issues. The tool catches inconsistencies between loan documents and UCC filings that could create perfection problems. Worth checking out given your loan volumes and Article 9 compliance concerns. Upload your docs and it flags potential issues before they become real problems.
Demi Lagos
•Thanks for all the input everyone. Sounds like the move is toward more specific descriptions while maintaining breadth for acquisitions. Going to review our templates and probably run some through Certana.ai to check for Article 9 consistency issues.
Good plan. Article 9 gives you options but market practice is definitely moving toward stronger collateral descriptions. Better to be ahead of the curve than behind it.
Join the conversation
Update us on what you find with the EIN verification! Always curious to hear how these situations resolve, especially in Arizona since their system is so quirky.
Ellie Perry
•Will do! Pulling the business records now. Thanks everyone for the guidance - feeling much more confident about how to sort this out.
Justin Trejo
•Yeah, would love to hear the resolution. These Arizona search issues come up all the time.
Alana Willis
Just wanted to add another vote for that Certana tool someone mentioned. Used it on a messy Nevada deal recently where we had similar name confusion, and it quickly flagged which results were actual matches vs. false positives. Definitely worth checking out for these kinds of verification headaches.
Alana Willis
•It's not making legal determinations, just highlighting discrepancies in names, addresses, and document details that you should investigate further. Still need human judgment but it speeds up the review process.
Ellie Perry
•That sounds exactly like what I need - something to help organize all these search results and flag the real concerns vs. the noise.
Join the conversation
Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with Connecticut UCC filings next week and want to avoid this same issue.
Lucas Turner
•Will do! Going to start with the SOS business search and see what that reveals.
Julia Hall
•Same here, I have three Connecticut filings coming up and this thread is making me nervous about potential name issues.
Arjun Patel
Just checking back to see if you resolved this? I'm curious what the actual issue turned out to be since I file in Connecticut regularly and want to watch out for similar problems.
Jade Lopez
•Ah yes, the comma strikes again! Connecticut is super strict about that punctuation. Hope that fixes it for you.
Tony Brooks
•I ran into this exact same issue last month with a different client. One tiny comma made all the difference. Thanks for sharing the resolution!
Join the conversation
Check the search date range too. I've seen systems default to only showing filings from the last year or something arbitrary like that. Make sure you're searching all dates.
Good catch, I was wondering if there were date filters I missed.
Yeah some states hide the date range settings in weird places. Look for 'advanced search' options.
Update: Found them! It was a combination of issues. The original UCC-1 was filed with 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with the comma) and I was searching 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' (without comma). Also had to search under 'all filings' not just 'active' because one had actually lapsed and needed a continuation. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
Nia Watson
•This is exactly why I started using automated document checking - catches these tiny but critical differences that human eyes miss.
Nice detective work! I've been in that same situation so many times.
Gianni Serpent
Try searching the NC SOS database for variations of the name. Sometimes they have weird abbreviations or formatting that's not obvious. Like maybe they have "Constr" instead of "Construction" or something like that.
0 coins
Nasira Ibanez
•Good idea. I'll try some variations and see what comes up. This whole thing is making me paranoid about every filing now.
0 coins
Henry Delgado
•Don't feel bad, NC is one of the pickier states. I've had filings rejected there for the dumbest reasons. Once got rejected because I had two spaces between words instead of one.
0 coins
Olivia Kay
UPDATE: Found the issue! The entity name in the SOS database had "Smith and Sons Construction, LLC" with a comma before LLC, but the articles of incorporation didn't have the comma. Such a tiny detail but apparently it matters. Refiled with the comma and it went through. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
0 coins
Callum Savage
•This is exactly the kind of thing that document verification tool would have caught. Punctuation discrepancies are like the #1 reason for UCC rejections.
0 coins
Jibriel Kohn
•A comma! All that stress over a comma. I'm definitely going to be more careful about punctuation going forward.
0 coins