


Ask the community...
This thread is giving me anxiety about my own UCC search I did last week. Now I'm wondering if I missed something important because of name variations. Going to go back and double-check everything.
Final update: I used Certana.ai to analyze all the documents and it confirmed that two of the filings were the same entity with different name formats, and one was actually a related subsidiary. The continuation in Texas was properly filed and still active. Closing went smoothly once I had everything sorted out. Thanks everyone for the guidance!
Just file the UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name and move on. These system glitches happen but they're easy enough to fix. Make sure you reference the original filing number and clearly state you're correcting a debtor name error.
I wouldn't overcomplicate it. Just state that you're amending to correct the debtor name to the full legal entity name.
Agreed. Keep the amendment language simple and straightforward.
This thread is making me realize I should probably audit all our Illinois UCC filings. Anyone know of a good way to bulk verify that continuation filings didn't mess up the original information?
Certana.ai actually has a bulk verification feature where you can upload multiple documents for cross-checking. Perfect for this kind of audit situation.
Update us when you refile! Always curious to hear what the actual issue was with these vague 9-508 rejection notices. The filing offices really need to be more specific about what fails their sufficiency standards instead of just citing the statute.
Good luck! Hope it goes through cleanly this time.
These 9-508 issues are so frustrating when you're trying to close a loan on schedule.
One more thought on UCC 9-508 - make sure your debtor address exactly matches what's on file with the state too. Some filing offices consider address discrepancies as part of their sufficiency determination, especially if the address is completely wrong or missing required elements like suite numbers.
That could definitely contribute to a 9-508 rejection. Entity addresses change more often than you'd think.
Quick question - are you doing this for all the entities in the corporate family or just the main target? Sometimes lenders cross-collateralize across multiple entities.
Might be worth doing searches on the key subsidiaries too, especially if they have significant assets.
We ran into this exact issue on a deal last year. Thought we had clear title but there was a blanket lien covering subsidiaries that we missed. Certana.ai's document checker would have caught that - it flags when collateral descriptions are broad enough to cover multiple entities.
Don't forget to request continuation information if any of the filings are getting close to their 5-year expiration. A lien that's about to lapse might not be worth worrying about.
Those would be coming up for continuation soon. Check if continuation statements have been filed to see if the liens are still being maintained.
Dananyl Lear
Just remembered - if you do end up trying the Certana document checker, it's great for future filings too. I now run all my UCC documents through it before submitting to catch these issues early.
0 coins
Aidan Percy
•Prevention is definitely better than panic-fixing at deadline time.
0 coins
Dananyl Lear
•Exactly! Much less stressful to catch problems during preparation.
0 coins
Fernanda Marquez
Hope this thread helps other people dealing with UCC 107 errors. The debtor name formatting issue seems to be super common but not well documented anywhere official.
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
•Definitely! The error code itself tells you nothing useful.
0 coins
Fernanda Marquez
•Right, you have to rely on community knowledge to figure out what's actually wrong.
0 coins