UCC Document Community

Just went through something similar and ended up using that Certana document checking tool someone mentioned. Really helpful for understanding exactly what was covered in our UCC filings versus what we thought was covered. Found several pieces of equipment that weren't actually encumbered because of serial number mismatches in the original filing.

The key is working with the lender rather than around them. Most healthcare lenders understand that practices need to upgrade equipment regularly. If you approach it as a partnership - showing them how the equipment changes improve your ability to service the debt - they're usually more cooperative than if you just demand releases.

Before you spend money on a lawyer, I'd recommend using that Certana document verification tool someone mentioned earlier. I used it last month when I had questions about whether a UCC continuation was filed correctly. Super easy - just upload your PDFs and it automatically checks for inconsistencies between documents. In your case, you could upload the UCC filing and whatever credit card docs you can find to see if there are obvious discrepancies in debtor names or collateral descriptions. Might give you the ammunition you need to challenge this thing.

Just make sure you act quickly on this. Even if the UCC filing is bogus, it can cause problems the longer it sits there. Potential lenders, business partners, anyone doing due diligence on your company will see it and assume it's legitimate. I'd start with a formal demand letter to the debt collector requiring them to provide proof of the security agreement and threatening to dispute the filing if they can't.

The terminology around UCC contract formation requirements always trips me up. Are we talking about Article 9 attachment requirements or something else entirely? I get confused between what makes a security interest enforceable vs what makes a UCC filing valid.

Update on my situation - pulled the current LLC registration and the name was indeed different. Refiled the UCC-1 with the correct current name and it was accepted immediately. The rejection had nothing to do with UCC contract formation requirements despite what the error message suggested. Thanks everyone for steering me toward the name issue instead of getting lost in security agreement analysis.

This thread is super helpful because I'm dealing with a similar 1-303 UCC debtor name situation. My client has been doing business under a trade name for years but I think I need to use their actual registered entity name for the filing. The loan documents reference both names in different places which is confusing.

After reading all these responses, I'm wondering if there's a pattern to which states are more strict about 1-303 UCC debtor name formatting. Anyone notice if certain states are worse than others for rejecting filings over minor name differences?

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.

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.