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
Paolo Romano
The punctuation thing is annoying but not usually a deal-breaker. What you should really be concerned about is making sure the debtor's legal name matches their current corporate status. LLC names can change slightly when they file amendments with the Secretary of State, and that's where you can run into real perfection issues.
Amina Diop
•Good point. Always worth running a corporate status check to make sure the entity name hasn't changed since you filed the UCC.
This is why I always check the Secretary of State's business entity database before filing any UCC. Make sure I'm using the exact current legal name.
Update us on what the SOS office tells you when you call. I'm curious whether this is a known issue with their system or if there's something else going on with your specific filing.
Thanks, this would be helpful for others who run into the same issue.
Emma Wilson
•Yeah, these kinds of posts are really valuable when you're trying to figure out if something is normal or a red flag.
Join the conversation
Paolo Marino
The burden of proof is on the debtor to show both unauthorized alteration AND prejudice. If they can't demonstrate actual harm from the changes, the 3.411 discharge claim fails. Don't let them get away with claiming automatic discharge.
QuantumQuest
•That's reassuring. The alteration actually improved their payment terms, so hard to see how they were prejudiced.
Amina Bah
•Exactly - beneficial alterations typically don't support discharge claims.
Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. This gives me a much better understanding of section 3.411 and the discharge requirements. I'll document the continued payments, get legal counsel, and possibly try that Certana tool for the document analysis. The key takeaway seems to be that discharge isn't automatic and requires proving actual prejudice.
Good luck with your case. The prejudice requirement is definitely your strongest defense against the discharge claim.
NeonNomad
•Let us know how it turns out. These 3.411 cases are always interesting.
Join the conversation
Rajiv Kumar
honestly this stuff is why I don't miss working in commercial lending. too many moving parts and the consequences of missing something are huge. good luck with your audit
Thanks. It's definitely stressful but we'll get through it. Just need to establish better processes going forward.
Update us when you get through the audit! I'm dealing with a similar situation on a smaller scale and would love to hear what approach worked best for the comprehensive filing list compilation.
Will do. So far the automated document checking is helping a lot with the cross-state consistency issues. Manual verification was just taking too long.
That's encouraging. The time savings alone would justify using a tool like that for multi-state UCC portfolio management.
Join the conversation
This thread is giving me flashbacks to my own utility filing nightmare. After trying everything else, I ended up using that Certana.ai document checker mentioned earlier. It actually caught that my UCC-1 had the right name but the wrong filing jurisdiction - the system was rejecting it because I was in the wrong state database entirely. Sometimes the issue isn't what you think it is.
StarSeeker
•Wow, wrong jurisdiction entirely? That would explain why nothing else was working. I'll definitely give that tool a try to see if there's something I'm missing completely.
Yeah it was embarrassing but the tool saved me from a major mistake. Cross-checks everything against multiple databases and flags inconsistencies you wouldn't catch manually.
Emma Wilson
UPDATE: Finally got it resolved! It was the comma issue mentioned earlier plus the fact that the company had a DBA filing that was interfering with the name match. Had to use the exact registered name format 'Midwest Power Transmission, LLC' and include their DBA information in the additional debtor section. Portal accepted it immediately after that. Thanks everyone for the help - this forum saved my sanity.
Nice work figuring it out. That's exactly the kind of detail that trips people up. At least now you know what to watch for on future utility filings.
Miguel Ortiz
•DBA filings are so annoying. Should be a standard part of the due diligence checklist but somehow always gets missed until you're fighting with the portal.
Jasmine Quinn
Don't forget to consider continuation timing if this is a long-term loan. You'll need to file continuation statements using the exact same debtor name format in 5 years. Better to establish a consistent approach now.
0 coins
Oscar Murphy
•Good reminder about continuations. If the debtor name changes format between the original filing and continuation, you could have problems.
0 coins
Nora Bennett
•Actually the continuation statement references the original filing number, so as long as you use the same debtor name format it should be fine.
0 coins
Ryan Andre
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up using Certana.ai to verify the exact name match between the Hungarian charter and my UCC-1 draft. It confirmed the Magyar characters were correctly formatted and the filing was accepted by the SOS. Really appreciate the help - this was stressing me out with such a large loan amount at stake.
0 coins
Lauren Zeb
•Glad it worked out! It's always nerve-wracking with international entity names. Good to know the verification tool handled Hungarian characters properly.
0 coins
Daniel Washington
•Excellent outcome. Thanks for the update - this will be helpful for others dealing with similar Magyar entity filings.
0 coins