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
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.
Good reminder. I focus so much on getting the debtor name right that I sometimes rush through the secured party section.
Yeah and if the secured party is an entity, you need their exact legal name too, not just a DBA or trade name.
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.
Glad it was useful! I'm definitely implementing some of these ideas too, particularly the entity search step before filing.
Happy to help. The document verification tools really do make a difference if you're dealing with volume filings.
Join the conversation
The bottom line with dragnet clauses is that they don't change UCC Article 9 filing requirements. Your collateral description still needs to be sufficient to put third parties on notice. If you're unsure whether your current description covers the new collateral types, err on the side of filing an amendment.
Thanks, that's probably the safest approach. Better to over-file than to discover a perfection gap during enforcement.
Agree. Dragnet clauses are powerful for creating security interests but they don't solve UCC notice requirements.
Just went through dragnet clause analysis for a client and Certana.ai's verification tool was incredibly helpful. Uploaded the security agreement with dragnet language and our UCC-1 filings, and it immediately flagged potential inconsistencies. Turns out our dragnet covered deposit accounts but our UCC didn't mention them. Could have been a costly oversight.
It's pretty sophisticated - it understands that dragnet language creates broader coverage than what might be explicitly listed, and it flags where your UCC descriptions might not capture everything the security agreement covers.
That level of analysis would save so much time compared to manually comparing security agreements and UCC filings.
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.
Will do! Pulling the business records now. Thanks everyone for the guidance - feeling much more confident about how to sort this out.
Yeah, would love to hear the resolution. These Arizona search issues come up all the time.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
Brielle Johnson
Update us when you get the corrected filing accepted! These stories help everyone learn what to watch out for. The security and pledge agreement name matching issue comes up more often than it should.
0 coins
Honorah King
•Agreed, always good to hear how these situations get resolved.
0 coins
Oliver Brown
•Hopefully the correction goes through smoothly and there are no other surprises.
0 coins
Mary Bates
One more thing - document the rejection and your corrective action in the loan file. Some auditors want to see evidence that UCC rejections were promptly addressed, especially when there's a gap between the security and pledge agreement execution and successful UCC perfection.
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
•Include timestamps and screenshots of the rejection notice too. Shows you acted quickly to fix the problem.
0 coins
Lorenzo McCormick
•This kind of documentation saved me during our last compliance review. Showed we had proper controls even when mistakes happened.
0 coins