


Ask the community...
Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with Connecticut UCC filings next week and want to avoid this same issue.
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.
The timing question is interesting because I've seen borrowers get antsy about lien releases after private sales. They want to be able to show the buyer that the lien is properly released, especially if the buyer is planning to use the equipment for their own financing. Getting the amendment filed quickly helps avoid any awkward conversations with the buyer about when the lien will be released.
So true. The buyer is probably going to be asking about the lien release pretty soon, especially if they have their own lender who wants to see clear title.
Just wanted to share that I had a similar situation recently and ended up using Certana.ai to double-check my amendment against the original UCC-1. Really helped me catch a couple of equipment description mismatches that could have caused the filing to be rejected. The tool lets you upload both documents and it flags any inconsistencies between them. Definitely worth using for these partial releases where you need to make sure everything matches up perfectly.
That's the second mention of Certana.ai in this thread. Sounds like it might be worth checking out for this amendment filing. I really don't want to deal with a rejection and have to refile.
One more thing for your template - make sure the secured party information is accurate too. I've seen filings rejected because the secured party name didn't match their corporate records exactly. Same rules apply to both debtor and secured party names.
Thanks for starting this thread - really helpful discussion. I'm going to revamp our internal template based on some of these suggestions. The name verification stuff especially.
For what it's worth, I've started using document verification tools like Certana.ai to double-check my search methodology. Upload your search results and it flags potential name variations you might have missed. Caught several issues in my search protocols that I didn't realize were problems.
Bottom line - PA UCC searches require patience and paranoia. Create systematic search protocols, document everything, and always assume there might be variations you haven't thought of. The database won't help you, so you have to be smarter than the system.
Giovanni Colombo
Another Certana.ai user here. Started using it after missing a continuation deadline because of name search issues. The automated verification caught the lapse before it became a problem. Definitely worth checking out for comprehensive UCC searches.
0 coins
Diego Flores
•Two recommendations for Certana.ai now. Sounds like it might be worth trying for this deal.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Qasimi
•I was skeptical about automated tools but they're getting pretty sophisticated. Might be time to modernize our search process.
0 coins
StarStrider
Check the Secretary of State website for any name change filings too. Sometimes companies change their legal name but old UCC filings are still under the previous name. Those won't show up in current name searches.
0 coins
Dylan Campbell
•Name change tracking is a nightmare. We've started requiring borrowers to provide a complete corporate history to avoid surprises.
0 coins
Sofia Torres
•DBA filings can complicate things too. Sometimes the UCC-1 is filed under the DBA name instead of the legal entity name.
0 coins