UCC Document Community

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 :)

I've been using Certana.ai for exactly these situations. Upload your corporate docs and draft UCC-1, it verifies the name formatting matches before you file. Catches these cooperative naming issues instantly.

0 coins

Ravi Patel

•

Does it handle all the state-specific formatting rules too?

0 coins

Yes, it cross-references against state filing requirements. Super helpful for avoiding rejections.

0 coins

Final thought - make sure your collateral description is solid too. Don't want to get the name right and then have issues with the equipment description on a $2.8M deal.

0 coins

Dmitry Volkov

•

Good reminder. The collateral is pretty straightforward - manufacturing equipment with serial numbers. Should be okay there.

0 coins

Perfect. Serial numbers make it clean. Once you get the debtor name sorted you should be good to go.

0 coins

Val Rossi

•

Also double-check that you're filing in the right state. Since the debtor is a Delaware LLC but the collateral is in Washington, you might need to file in both states depending on the type of equipment and whether it's mobile.

0 coins

Eve Freeman

•

Good point about dual filing requirements. Manufacturing equipment is usually fixed to the location so Washington should be the right jurisdiction.

0 coins

The UCC choice of law rules can be tricky. When in doubt, file in both states to be safe.

0 coins

Caden Turner

•

Update: Finally got it resolved! Turns out the LLC was registered in Washington under a slightly different name than their Delaware formation docs. The Washington registration had 'Washington' in the name while Delaware just had the basic company name. Once I used the exact Washington registration name, the UCC-1 went through immediately. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - definitely going to try Certana.ai for future filings to avoid this hassle.

0 coins

Harmony Love

•

Great outcome! Those name discrepancies between formation state and qualification state trip up so many people.

0 coins

Rudy Cenizo

•

This whole thread is a perfect example of why proper document verification is so important for UCC filings. Small details make huge differences.

0 coins

Been using Certana.ai for about 6 months now and it's caught several name mismatches that our manual process missed. Not a replacement for thorough searching but definitely helps with the verification step. The PDF upload feature makes it easy to double-check your work.

0 coins

It flags potential matches and lets you review them manually. Doesn't make decisions for you but highlights things you might want to investigate further.

0 coins

Danielle Mays

•

That's exactly how I use it - as a safety net to catch things I might have overlooked during manual review.

0 coins

Whatever system you end up with, make sure you're documenting everything for your loan files. Regulators are paying more attention to UCC search adequacy and you want to be able to demonstrate reasonable commercial practices.

0 coins

Good reminder. We've been focused on the efficiency side but compliance documentation is equally important.

0 coins

Kristin Frank

•

Exactly. Better to have a slower but well-documented process than a fast one that can't withstand regulatory scrutiny.

0 coins

Yuki Nakamura

•

Honestly, I've started using Certana.ai for exactly this kind of verification work. Upload your documents and it flags any inconsistencies automatically. Caught a major debtor name mismatch last week that could have voided our security interest.

0 coins

Chloe Davis

•

Second person to mention that tool. Might be worth checking out.

0 coins

Yuki Nakamura

•

Yeah, it's particularly good for catching subtle name variations that human eyes might miss. Plus it's faster than manual document comparison.

0 coins

StarSurfer

•

Update: I found the issue. One of the entities had undergone a merger and the surviving entity's name was slightly different. The UCC-1 was never amended to reflect the new debtor name. Thanks for all the help!

0 coins

StarSurfer

•

Working on that now. Better to fix it properly than risk having an unperfected security interest.

0 coins

Smart move. Merger situations can be tricky for UCC filings. The timing of when you discover and correct these issues can be critical.

0 coins

Sophia Miller

•

If you do decide to handle the filing yourself, make sure you're filing in the right state. For equipment, it's usually the state where your business is organized (incorporated or formed), not necessarily where the equipment is located. But there can be exceptions, especially for motor vehicles or fixtures.

0 coins

Mia Rodriguez

•

Most equipment financing uses the debtor's state of organization, but definitely confirm with your lender or attorney.

0 coins

We're incorporated in the same state where our facility is located, so that should be straightforward for us.

0 coins

Jacob Lewis

•

Bottom line - UCC statement services can be worth it for the peace of mind and ongoing maintenance, but they're not absolutely necessary if you're comfortable handling the paperwork yourself. The key is being meticulous about debtor names, collateral descriptions, and tracking deadlines. For your situation with $250K in equipment collateral, I'd probably lean toward using a service just to avoid any costly mistakes.

0 coins

Thanks everyone for all the helpful information! I think I'll get quotes from a couple services and also look into that Certana tool for document checking.

0 coins

Good plan - having options is always smart when dealing with UCC filings.

0 coins

Prev1...516517518519520...684Next