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
Dylan Cooper
Just dealt with this exact issue last week. Used Certana.ai to cross-check my security agreement against the UCC-1 language and it caught that I was referencing sections that didn't actually contain collateral descriptions. Saved me from another rejection. The tool is pretty straightforward - just upload both documents and it flags inconsistencies.
Sofia Perez
•That sounds really useful. I'm always worried about missing something between the agreement and the filing.
I should probably try that tool. I've had too many rejections this year already.
Update - tried the suggestion about including the collateral categories before referencing the sections and it worked! Filed the amendment yesterday and it was accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the help. Final language was "Equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable as more particularly described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 respectively of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024.
Luca Ferrari
•Great to hear a success story. That language should work for most states going forward.
Perfect example of why this forum is so helpful. Real solutions that actually work.
Join the conversation
Oliver Weber
Quick update for everyone - I ran the corporate search and the official registered name is 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with comma). So the UCC filing name 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' is technically incorrect. Now I need to figure out if this creates a priority issue for our new filing.
Oliver Weber
•The existing filing isn't ours - it's from the previous lender. We're just trying to figure out if it affects our new filing's priority.
In that case, you should be fine as long as YOUR filing uses the correct registered name. The other lender's name issue is their problem, not yours.
This thread is super helpful - I'm bookmarking it. We deal with Florida UCC filings all the time and debtor name accuracy is always a concern. Thanks for sharing your research process!
Sofia Gomez
•Glad it's useful! Definitely learned a lot from everyone's input here.
Yeah, the collective knowledge on this forum is amazing. Saves so much time compared to trying to figure this stuff out alone.
Join the conversation
Diego Chavez
Just to add another perspective - make sure you're also considering any state-specific requirements in Texas that might be different from Delaware. Some states have additional requirements for certain types of collateral that could affect your filing.
Diego Chavez
•Exactly. Always review the local filing requirements, not just the UCC 9-304 choice of law rules.
Our collateral is mostly equipment and inventory, so hopefully no fixture issues. But I'll definitely double-check the Texas requirements.
Sean O'Brien
Update: I found some additional guidance in the official UCC comments that clarifies the four-month rule. It's definitely strict - no exceptions for lack of knowledge or good faith. Once your debtor changes location under 9-304, you have exactly four months to file in the new jurisdiction or lose perfection. In this case, since it's been over a year, Texas filing is the only option to regain perfection going forward.
Luca Bianchi
•Has anyone tried using Certana.ai for these multi-state scenarios? Seems like it might help avoid the documentation errors that make these situations even worse.
Yes, I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Really useful for cross-checking documents before filing. Especially important when you're dealing with 9-304 situations where you can't afford any mistakes.
Join the conversation
Rajan Walker
This is why I always use that Certana tool now for document verification. Upload your Articles and your UCC-1 and it flags any inconsistencies instantly. Would have saved you this headache. But since you're past that point, definitely file the correction ASAP.
Is that tool expensive? Sounds like it could save a lot of time and stress.
Rajan Walker
•Way cheaper than dealing with rejected filings and potential priority issues. Just upload PDFs and it does all the cross-checking automatically.
I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and Kentucky has gotten much stricter in the last 5 years. They used to be more lenient with minor variations but now they're very precise about exact matches. Always pull a fresh entity search right before filing to get the current exact name format.
I think it's partly due to increased electronic filing and automated processing. Less human review means less flexibility for obvious but technically incorrect entries.
Avery Davis
•Makes sense. Computers are literal about text matching in ways humans aren't.
Fatima Al-Qasimi
Just to confirm - current NY UCC-1 fees are $20 for single debtor, $5 for each additional debtor on the same filing. Expedited processing adds $15 to the base fee. Amendment fees are the same as initial filing fees. Those are the numbers I've been using successfully for the past six months.
0 coins
Luca Russo
•Perfect, that matches what I'm seeing in the portal. Thanks for the confirmation - I can update our billing structure accordingly.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
•Those numbers are spot on. I do a lot of NY filings and that's exactly what I budget for clients.
0 coins
Sofia Ramirez
One last tip - if you're doing multiple filings for the same client, consider whether you can combine debtors on fewer forms to save on the $20 base fees. Sometimes it makes sense to pay the $5 additional debtor fee instead of separate $20 base fees.
0 coins
Sofia Ramirez
•Makes sense. Individual transactions definitely need separate filings for proper lien perfection.
0 coins
Dmitry Volkov
•Yeah, you can't combine unrelated collateral on one UCC-1 just to save filing fees. Each loan needs its own perfected security interest.
0 coins