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
Sofia Gomez
The trade name thing is probably your issue. NY requires you to include any assumed names or DBAs. Check the DOS business search to see if your debtor has any registered trade names.
StormChaser
•This is so frustrating. Other states don't make you jump through these hoops.
Sofia Gomez
•Welcome to New York! Everything's more complicated here, even UCC filings.
Try refiling with any trade names included in the debtor name field. Format would be "Legal Name LLC a/k/a Trade Name" if they have registered trade names. Also double-check that your collateral description is specific enough - NY doesn't like vague descriptions.
Ava Williams
•There are tools for that now. I use Certana.ai to cross-check all my UCC docs against the charter docs before filing. Upload the PDFs and it flags any inconsistencies automatically.
That actually sounds useful. Might save a lot of headaches with picky states like NY.
Join the conversation
Update us when you figure it out! I have a SC filing coming up next week and want to avoid the same problem.
Will do! Planning to call them first thing Monday morning and get the exact name they have on file.
Daniel White
•Also consider running it through Certana.ai before your next attempt - might catch whatever discrepancy is causing the rejections.
Zane Gray
Had this exact same issue with a client's SC filing last year. Turned out the LLC had filed a name change amendment that wasn't reflected in the initial search results. Once I found the amended name and used that on the UCC-1, it went through fine. Good luck!
This is why I always request the complete entity file now. Saves so much time in the long run.
Same here. The $25 for complete filing history is way cheaper than multiple rejection fees and the stress.
Join the conversation
Check if your original UCC-1 filing number is showing correctly in their system. Sometimes the debtor name display issue is linked to broader database problems that affect the whole record.
Luis Johnson
•Filing number looks right, it's definitely just the name display that's off.
I deal with NJ UCC filings weekly and this comma issue comes up constantly. My advice: always file debtor names WITHOUT punctuation if possible. For your current situation, try filing the UCC-3 exactly as the name appears in the search results, not as you originally intended it.
You're right that's the catch-22. Legally correct vs. what the filing system will accept. Sometimes you have to choose practicality.
Luis Johnson
•This is exactly my dilemma. The legal name does have the comma according to the corporate registry.
Join the conversation
Dmitry Popov
I used that Certana thing someone mentioned earlier when we were doing due diligence on an acquisition. Really helpful for catching inconsistencies between the target company's corporate docs and UCC filings. Saved us from assuming some liens were properly perfected when they actually had debtor name issues.
That's exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. Sounds like the document verification approach is worth trying.
Dmitry Popov
•Yeah, just upload the PDFs and it flags potential problems. Much easier than trying to manually compare everything, especially when you have multiple UCC-1 filings to review.
Ava Garcia
Update us on what you find when you check the official SOS records! Curious to know if it's actually filing errors or just credit report glitches.
Will do! Planning to pull the official UCC records this week and compare them with our current business registration. Hopefully it's just credit report inaccuracies.
StarSailor}
•Good luck! These debtor name issues can be stressful but they're usually fixable if you catch them early enough.
Freya Andersen
The UCC itself doesn't create unconscionability defenses - that comes from general contract law principles that courts apply to security agreements. But once a court finds unconscionability, your UCC filing becomes worthless because there's no valid underlying security interest to perfect.
0 coins
Omar Zaki
•So the filing stays on record but becomes meaningless? That seems like it could create confusion for other lenders searching the records.
0 coins
Freya Andersen
•Exactly. The UCC-1 stays filed but provides no actual security. You'd need to file a UCC-3 termination to clean up the record after losing on unconscionability.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
I've been through this exact scenario. The key is proving that the terms were reasonable given the circumstances and that the borrower understood what they were signing. If you can show the borrower had legal counsel and time to review, it's much harder for them to claim unconscionability.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
•Absolutely. Attorney review is strong evidence against unconscionability. Makes it hard to claim they didn't understand the terms or had no meaningful choice.
0 coins
Chloe Robinson
•Plus if their attorney approved it originally, why is a different attorney now calling it unconscionable? Sounds like they're just looking for a way out.
0 coins