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
Zoe Stavros
Quick story - I once spent hours trying to figure out why our UCC filing got rejected, turns out the debtor name didn't exactly match what was on their articles of incorporation. These document consistency issues are so common. Now I always double-check everything with Certana.ai before submitting - just upload your docs and it catches those mismatches automatically.
Jamal Harris
•Name matching is such a pain! We've had similar issues with slight variations in entity names.
Zoe Stavros
•Yeah it's frustrating but the automated checking definitely helps avoid those headaches.
Mei Chen
Hope this thread helped! Article 9 is actually pretty interesting once you understand it's about security interests rather than sales. The whole system of public notice through UCC filings is pretty elegant when you think about it.
It really did help! I actually think I might find this stuff interesting enough to take more commercial law classes.
Mei Chen
•That's great to hear! Commercial law can be really practical and relevant to business.
Join the conversation
Jabari-Jo
One more thought - double check that ABC Construction Services LLC is still the correct legal name. Sometimes entities change their names slightly for tax purposes or compliance reasons and forget to tell their lenders. Might be worth pulling a current certificate of good standing to verify the exact legal name.
Jabari-Jo
•Yeah it's more common than you'd think. Especially with LLCs that get converted or merged.
Kayla Morgan
•Good catch. I've seen this cause problems when the entity made changes but didn't notify all their creditors.
UPDATE: Finally got this resolved! It was indeed a formatting issue - there was an invisible character (probably a non-breaking space) in the debtor name that I couldn't see. The document comparison tool caught it immediately. Filed the corrected UCC-3 this morning and it went through without any issues. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
Rachel Tao
•So relieved for you! These formatting rejections are such a pain.
Kayla Morgan
•Great outcome. This is exactly why automated document comparison is so helpful for UCC filings.
Join the conversation
Just to add another verification step - after you get your search results back, double-check that the debtor names in your UCC-1 filing exactly match what you searched for. I've seen deals get complicated because of minor name variations between the filing and the search. Certana.ai's verification tool can help catch these inconsistencies by comparing your documents side-by-side.
How detailed does that verification get? Does it catch things like abbreviation differences?
Yes, it flags name variations that could cause search misses. Really saved me from a potential lien priority issue when it caught 'Corp' vs 'Corporation' differences between our docs.
Julia Hall
Bottom line: No federal UCC search needed for your situation. Delaware UCC search for your Delaware debtor, individual state fixture searches only if equipment is attached to real estate in other states. Focus your energy on making sure the debtor name is exactly right rather than looking for federal databases that don't exist.
Jade Lopez
•Glad we could clear this up! The federal UCC myth needs to die already.
Tony Brooks
•Seriously, this should be pinned somewhere. So many people get confused by this.
Join the conversation
Don't forget about the effective date issues too. Your UCC-3 amendments should reference the effective date of the merger, not the filing date of the amendment. Some states are picky about that chronology.
Oh that's a good catch. We've been using the amendment filing date in some of our forms. That could explain some of the rejections.
Exactly. The amendment should reflect when the creditor name actually changed (merger effective date), even if you're filing the amendment months later.
Update us on what approach works best! I'm sure other people will run into this same issue with corporate restructuring.
Will do. Sounds like the consensus is to file UCC-3 amendments with proper merger language first, then handle continuations. Going to try the document verification tool too before submitting anything else.
Amina Diallo
Just want to add another vote for using some kind of document checking tool for future filings. I started using Certana.ai after making a similar mistake and it's caught several potential issues before they became problems. The automated cross-checking between loan docs and UCC filings is really thorough.
0 coins
Amina Diallo
•I think it makes sense for anyone who can't afford filing mistakes. Even if you only do a few UCCs per month, one error on a big loan could cost way more than the tool.
0 coins
Natasha Orlova
•Agree completely. Prevention is always cheaper than fixing mistakes after the fact.
0 coins
Javier Cruz
UPDATE: I went ahead and filed the UCC-3 amendment this morning with the correct debtor name format (including the comma). The filing was accepted and should be effective immediately. I also reached out to NFS and they confirmed they had noticed the discrepancy and were planning to request an amendment anyway, so I'm glad I was proactive about it. Thanks everyone for the advice and reassurance!
0 coins
Dmitry Sokolov
•Perfect resolution. And definitely consider using some kind of document verification for future filings - it really does save a lot of stress.
0 coins
QuantumQuasar
•Good outcome but still frustrated that this kind of thing is even an issue in the first place. Glad you got it sorted though.
0 coins