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
I'm surprised nobody mentioned checking the Assumed Name database. Sometimes businesses file under assumed names and that can cause confusion with UCC filings. Worth checking if Bayou Transport has any DBAs on file.
Yeah, it's another database to check but it might explain the name variations you're seeing.
DBA filings can definitely complicate UCC name matching. Good catch.
Had similar issues with Louisiana last year. Ended up having to file an amendment after I finally got the UCC-1 accepted because I used the wrong version of the name initially. Cost me extra time and fees but at least the lien was perfected.
That's my worst fear - having to deal with amendments after closing. Did the amendment process go smoothly?
It was straightforward once I had the right name format. UCC-3 amendment was accepted without issues.
Join the conversation
Update: tried that Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier and it immediately caught three different debtor name variations in our FTX filings. Would have taken hours to spot manually. Definitely recommend for anyone dealing with multiple related UCC filings.
Did it help you figure out which name format to use for the continuation?
It showed me exactly which original UCC-1 had which debtor name format, so I could match the continuation perfectly. No more guessing.
Final thought - make sure you're checking the right jurisdiction too. FTX had entities filed in multiple states and each might have slightly different name formats even for the same company.
Each state's UCC database is separate so you'll need to verify debtor names in each one individually.
California's system is particularly picky about debtor names. Had three rejections there before getting it exactly right.
Join the conversation
One mistake I see students make is not understanding the difference between attachment and perfection. You can have a perfectly valid security interest (attached) that's still worthless against third parties because it's not perfected. The security agreement creates the interest, but perfection is what protects it. Don't confuse the two concepts.
So if someone has an attached but unperfected security interest, what exactly are their rights? Can they still repossess if the debtor defaults?
Yes, they can still enforce against the debtor, but they'll lose to most third parties including other secured creditors, lien creditors, and many buyers. Perfection is about priority, not validity of the security interest itself.
The key insight that helped me was realizing Article 9 is basically a notice system. Filing a UCC-1 puts the world on notice that you have a security interest in certain collateral. That's why the debtor name has to be exactly right - people searching the records need to be able to find your filing. Same reason collateral descriptions have to be adequate - searchers need to know what property is encumbered.
That's a really helpful way to think about it! So all the technical filing requirements are really about making sure the notice system works properly?
Exactly. The whole system only works if people can rely on UCC searches to find existing security interests. That's why courts are so strict about things like debtor names - if the filing can't be found, it doesn't give proper notice.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I recently started using Certana.ai to double-check these kinds of filing discrepancies. You can upload multiple UCC documents and it automatically flags any inconsistencies in debtor names, filing numbers, or document references. Would have saved you the confusion by catching that the continuation wasn't actually related to your UCC-1.
Second person to mention that tool - might be worth checking out. Better to catch these issues early than discover them during a workout situation
Definitely. The peace of mind is worth it when you're dealing with complex collateral packages or borrowers with multiple lenders
This whole thread is making me paranoid about my own Vermont filings now. Going to go double-check all my recent UCC searches to make sure I'm not missing anything important.
I do quarterly UCC audits for all our loans. Found several terminated filings that should have been continued and caught a few debtor name mismatches that could have caused issues
How do you manage that many filings? Sounds like a lot of manual work to check each one individually
Diego Fernández
Wisconsin DFI really needs to modernize their system. Other states have fuzzy matching that catches obvious variations but Wisconsin is stuck in the stone age with exact character matching.
0 coins
Anastasia Kuznetsov
•Agreed. California's system is so much more user-friendly. Wisconsin acts like computers can't figure out that 'LLC' and 'L.L.C.' are the same thing.
0 coins
Diego Fernández
•Exactly! In 2025 we shouldn't be getting rejections over comma placement. Their whole system needs an overhaul.
0 coins
Sean Fitzgerald
Quick update strategy for your situation: pull the exact name from Wisconsin DFI today, amend your security agreement to match, then refile the UCC-1. Should clear up the discrepancy. Also consider using one of those document checking tools to verify everything matches before submitting.
0 coins
Sean Fitzgerald
•Good plan. Wisconsin can be tricky but once you get the name exactly right the filing should go through smoothly. Keep copies of everything for your file.
0 coins
Zara Khan
•And double-check that Wisconsin DFI UCC search one more time right before you refile - occasionally they update their records and the name format can change.
0 coins