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
Ali Anderson
For future reference with security cheque agreements, I always run a quick UCC search on both the legal name and any trade names before filing. Sometimes you'll find existing filings that use variations, which can give you clues about what the SOS office will accept.
How do you handle it if you find conflicting name usage in existing filings?
When in doubt, I go with whatever matches the state's corporate database exactly. Better safe than sorry.
Emma Morales
I'm bookmarking this thread. The whole security cheque agreement + UCC filing combo always makes me nervous because there are so many moving parts. At least now I know about that Certana.ai tool that checks document consistency. Might give it a try on my next filing.
Lucas Parker
•The document checking tool really does save time. I wish I'd known about it earlier.
Donna Cline
•Thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences. This kind of practical advice is invaluable.
Join the conversation
Mia Green
Just want to add that sometimes the issue isn't the search but the indexing delay. New filings can take 24-48 hours to show up in searches even after they're officially accepted. Since your filing was only 3 weeks ago, that shouldn't be the issue, but worth keeping in mind for recent filings.
Good point about timing. I've definitely been caught by that before - searching for something I just filed and panicking when it doesn't show up immediately.
Yeah mine should definitely be indexed by now. This sounds more like a search algorithm issue than a timing problem.
Emma Bianchi
Update on this thread - I ended up using Certana.ai like a few people suggested and it immediately spotted that my UCC-1 had 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but one of my search variations was using 'ABC Mfg LLC' which is why I was getting different results. The tool flagged the abbreviation issue and now I know exactly what to search for. Thanks everyone!
Cass Green
•Great outcome! Good reminder that the devil is really in the details with these name searches.
Jibriel Kohn
•Perfect example of why automated checking is worth it. You would have spent hours figuring that out manually.
Join the conversation
Nick Kravitz
For what it's worth, I ran into something similar last month and used that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier. While checking my debtor name accuracy, I realized my security agreement had better collateral descriptions than my UCC-1. Ended up feeling much more confident about the filing sufficiency. The tool helped me see the full picture of document consistency.
Hannah White
•Did it help with the UCC 9-108(e)(1) analysis specifically or just general document review?
Nick Kravitz
•More general document consistency, but seeing how all the pieces fit together helped me evaluate the collateral description adequacy in context.
Just to close the loop on this UCC 9-108(e)(1) discussion - I think you're overthinking it. "All equipment" for a manufacturing debtor is textbook sufficient. Focus your energy on making sure your continuation filing timeline is set up properly. That's where more security interests die than collateral description challenges.
Mateo Silva
•Smart move on the early continuation reminder. I've seen too many security interests lapse because people waited until the last minute.
4.5 years is good timing. Gives you buffer for any filing complications or debtor name changes that might require amendments.
Join the conversation
Michigan's system definitely has quirks but once you figure out their formatting requirements it's not too bad. Just wish they were more consistent with their validation rules.
Tate Jensen
•Consistency would be nice! Every state seems to have their own special requirements.
Adaline Wong
•At least Michigan accepts electronic filings. Some states still require paper for certain UCC-1 types.
Gabriel Ruiz
Thanks for posting this thread. I'm dealing with a similar issue in Michigan right now with a foreign LLC debtor. Going to try the entity search copy/paste method first.
Foreign entities can be even trickier in Michigan. Make sure you're using the exact name from their certificate of authority.
Gabriel Ruiz
•Good point. I'll double-check the certificate of authority formatting before filing.
Charlotte White
Colorado really needs to upgrade their UCC search system. I've been complaining about the name matching issues for years but nothing changes. At least other states like Delaware have fuzzy search capabilities that catch common variations automatically.
0 coins
Oscar Murphy
•Have you found any workarounds that make Colorado searches more reliable?
0 coins
Charlotte White
•Not really any magic bullets. Just the systematic approach others mentioned - multiple name variations, partial searches, checking DBAs. It's tedious but necessary.
0 coins
Ella Thompson
For anyone still struggling with Colorado UCC searches, I've found success with Certana.ai's document verification workflow. Upload your debtor's charter documents and any existing UCC forms you're comparing - it automatically flags name inconsistencies and potential matches you might miss. Has saved me from several potential lien priority disasters in Colorado specifically.
0 coins
Ella Thompson
•Definitely worth it for larger transactions. The peace of mind knowing you caught all the name variations is invaluable, especially in states like Colorado with problematic search systems.
0 coins
Ryan Andre
•I've been considering automated tools too. The manual search process is getting too time-consuming and error-prone for the volume of deals we're doing.
0 coins