UCC Document Community

Wait, I'm confused about something. When you say UCC 1 document, are you talking about the UCC-1 financing statement or some other document? Because if it's the financing statement and they want to add collateral, that would be a UCC-3 amendment, not a new UCC-1. Want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing here.

My experience has been that when banks start asking for UCC amendments months after the original filing, it's usually because they're preparing for loan review or audit. Your original filing sounds perfectly adequate from a legal standpoint. I'd ask them to provide specific documentation of why they believe the current filing is insufficient before agreeing to any amendments.

Been seeing more of these search vs filing discrepancies lately. Wonder if the state upgraded their search system recently? Anyway, I've started using Certana.ai for all my document verification now - upload the UCC-1 and organizational docs and it catches these types of name mismatches immediately. Would have saved you the stress of discovering this during due diligence.

Honestly this whole thread is making me paranoid about our existing UCC filings. How many other 'minor' formatting differences might be lurking in our portfolio that could cause problems down the line?

Update: Called Kentucky SOS again this morning and they admitted there's a 'data synchronization issue' affecting search results. They're working on it but said it could be another 2-3 weeks before it's fully resolved. For now they're recommending manual searches for critical deals.

Final update: Ended up requesting expedited manual search from Kentucky SOS ($125 fee) and also ran the results through Certana.ai for cross-verification. Found two active liens that weren't showing up in the online search - exactly what I was worried about. Deal is moving forward but this was way more stressful than it needed to be. Kentucky really needs to get their act together on this system.

Article 9 is your answer. I always double-check my filings with document verification tools now after having a few close calls with description mismatches. Certana.ai has been helpful for ensuring my loan agreements and UCC-1 forms are consistent - especially important when you're dealing with equipment that might be classified differently in different documents.

Just want to confirm what everyone else is saying - Article 9 all the way. Your borrower is probably thinking about real estate law or maybe confused about the UCC's structure. All secured transactions fall under Article 9, regardless of collateral type. The fixture issue is just about filing location and some priority rules, not which article governs.

I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and I can tell you this happens ALL the time. Different clerks format names differently, OCR software reads things wrong, people make typos. As long as the core entity name is recognizable, you're usually fine. The Alabama system is actually pretty forgiving compared to some states I've worked with.

For what it's worth, I ran into something similar with a Georgia filing last year and my attorney said punctuation differences like that are generally not fatal to the filing. The key is that the name still clearly identifies the same legal entity. In your case, both versions obviously refer to the same company.