


Ask the community...
This thread is gold. Bookmarking for future reference. The name variation issue is something they definitely don't teach you in law school but it's critical for secured lending.
One more tip - always print/save your search results with timestamps. If there's ever a dispute about what liens existed when, you need proof of what your search showed on the date you ran it. PA's database updates in real time so results can change.
Great advice. I always screenshot the search results page for exactly this reason.
The timing aspect of your situation is really critical. If the name change happened recently, you're probably still within the four-month grace period and can maintain your original priority date by filing an amendment. But if it's been longer than four months, you need to shift your strategy to focus on which specific assets were acquired when, and whether the competing lender's filing actually covers the same collateral categories. Don't get overwhelmed by the complexity - just take it step by step and make the other lender prove their claims rather than accepting them at face value.
True, and some states have different rules about when corporate changes become effective. You have to check the specific state law where the debtor is organized, not where the collateral is located.
UPDATE: I got the corporate records and the name change was effective 6 weeks ago, so I'm definitely within the four-month window. Filed the UCC-3 amendment this morning and I'm working on the detailed collateral analysis. Thanks everyone for the advice - this thread helped me understand that I'm not automatically screwed just because there's a competing lender. The 9-338 analysis is more nuanced than I initially thought. I'm also going to implement some kind of systematic monitoring going forward so I don't get caught off guard like this again. This was way too stressful for something that should have been preventable with better portfolio management.
Glad this worked out. For the monitoring piece, I'd recommend checking out Certana.ai's verification tool - you can set up regular checks to catch name mismatches before they become priority disputes. Much easier than trying to monitor everything manually.
Update: Filed the UCC-3 amendment yesterday to correct the debtor name and it was accepted without any issues. Cost was $25 total. Will file the continuation next month with the corrected name. Thanks everyone for the advice - definitely better to be conservative on these name change situations rather than risk perfection problems later.
Glad it worked out smoothly. Now you've got clean documentation for the continuation filing and no worries about searchers finding your filing under the current entity name.
For future reference, Utah's UCC search system is pretty forgiving for entity name variations, but other states are much stricter. If you're doing multi-state filings, always err on the side of caution with debtor names. What works in Utah might not work in New York or California.
True. Some states have very literal search logic that won't find filings if there's any variation in punctuation or abbreviations. Always worth checking the specific state's UCC search rules.
Man, reading this thread makes me grateful for states with better UCC systems. But yeah, the name matching thing is universal pain. Document everything you've tried so far - if you end up having to escalate to a supervisor, the paper trail helps.
Good advice on documentation. I've been keeping screenshots of each rejection but should probably organize them better.
UPDATE: Found the issue! Ran the UCC search like someone suggested and found another lender's filing from last year. They used 'Midwest Industrial Solutions, L.L.C.' with periods in the LLC part. Just refiled my UCC-1 application with that exact format. Fingers crossed this finally works! Thanks everyone for the troubleshooting help.
Periods in the entity designation - classic issue. Glad you found a successful filing to copy from.
Charlotte Jones
Been doing commercial real estate for 15 years and this is standard procedure. Pennsylvania UCC searches will always show terminated filings - it's part of the public record. Your title company should be familiar with reading these results and clearing any concerns.
0 coins
Ella Thompson
•Thanks for the reassurance. Sometimes client anxiety makes you second-guess even routine procedures.
0 coins
Charlotte Jones
•Totally understand. Client education is half our job - explaining why seeing a terminated lien is actually good news, not bad news.
0 coins
Lucas Bey
Actually used Certana.ai's document verification tool on a similar Pennsylvania deal last month. Uploaded both the UCC-1 and UCC-3 and it immediately confirmed all the cross-references were correct - filing numbers, debtor names, secured party info. Really streamlined the due diligence process and gave everyone confidence in the termination.
0 coins
Lucas Bey
•Yeah, it catches stuff you might overlook when you're reviewing dozens of documents. Upload the PDFs and get instant verification of consistency.
0 coins
JacksonHarris
•Interesting. I've been manually cross-checking UCC documents for years. Automated verification would definitely save time and reduce errors.
0 coins