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
Sophia Russo
Just went through this exact situation in Oregon last month. Turned out the issue was that our law firm had used a slightly different version of the company name on the continuation than what was on the original UCC-1. The original had 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' with a comma, but we filed the continuation as 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' without the comma. Oregon's system is incredibly picky about punctuation now.
Sophia Russo
•Yeah definitely check every single punctuation mark. We wasted two weeks on rejections before catching that comma issue.
This is exactly why I recommend the Certana document checker - it would have caught that comma difference immediately instead of you having to go through multiple rejections.
Evelyn Xu
One more thing to check - make sure you're using the right filing number from the original UCC-1. Oregon assigns both a file number and a filing number, and using the wrong one can cause weird errors that look like name problems.
I'm using the number from the top of the UCC-1 acknowledgment copy. Should be right but I'll double-check.
Evelyn Xu
•Good that's usually the right one. Just wanted to mention it since I've seen people use internal reference numbers by mistake.
Join the conversation
Zainab Ahmed
Quick tip - PA allows wildcard searches using asterisks in some cases. Try searching 'ABC*' which might catch 'ABC Manufacturing', 'ABC Mfg', 'ABC Corp' etc. Not perfect but can help identify variations you missed.
Wait really? I didn't know PA supported wildcard searches. That could save me tons of time!
Zainab Ahmed
•Yeah but it's not well documented. Sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Worth trying though - just don't rely on it as your only search method.
For what it's worth, I just went through this exact scenario last month with a PA company acquisition. Ended up finding 2 additional UCC filings I had missed on my initial searches because the lender had abbreviated 'Manufacturing' as 'Mfg' on one filing and 'Manuf' on another. The lesson is you really can't be too thorough with name variations. Better to over-search than miss something critical.
That's exactly what I'm worried about. Did you end up using any tools to help with the verification process?
I actually used Certana.ai after finding those missed filings. Uploaded all the docs I had found and it flagged a few more potential name conflicts I should search for. Wish I had used it from the beginning - would have saved me from having to explain to the client why my 'comprehensive' search missed two liens.
Join the conversation
Bottom line - never rely on a single source for UCC verification, especially for high-value transactions. The cost of cross-checking multiple sources is nothing compared to missing a lien that could void your security interest.
This is the right approach. Redundant verification is standard practice for good reason.
Exactly. And tools like Certana.ai make the cross-checking process much more manageable when you're dealing with lots of documents.
Thanks everyone for the feedback. Sounds like lexisnexis ucc search issues are pretty common and the solution is basically don't trust any single source. Will definitely look into better verification workflows.
Andre Dupont
•Good luck with your portfolio review. Multiple verification sources are definitely the way to go.
Hope you get those discrepancies sorted out. Database lag is frustrating but at least there are workarounds.
Join the conversation
Kai Santiago
I work in commercial lending and see this UCC9 confusion constantly. It usually comes from attorneys who practiced in the 80s and 90s when some states had different numbering systems. The current uniform system has been in place for decades now, but old habits die hard. Always use UCC-3 for terminations.
That explains where my attorney got the UCC9 reference from. Thank you for the historical context.
Lim Wong
•Yeah I've noticed older attorneys sometimes use outdated form references. It's always best to double-check with current filing requirements.
Dananyl Lear
Quick tip for anyone filing UCC-3 terminations - make sure you have the original secured party's authorization. If the original lender sold the loan or there's been an assignment, you might need additional documentation. Also, some states require notarization for terminations.
Demi Lagos
•Definitely verify the current secured party information. That's a common source of termination rejections.
And check your state's specific requirements. Some want original signatures, others accept electronic filings.
Malia Ponder
Honestly I'd just call CT SOS UCC department at this point. They can look up your filing by confirmation number and tell you exactly what's going on. Faster than trying to guess what went wrong.
0 coins
Laila Fury
•Yeah you're probably right. I'll give them a call tomorrow morning and see what they can find.
0 coins
Myles Regis
•Good plan. They're usually pretty helpful when you call directly.
0 coins
Kyle Wallace
Before calling, try one more search using just the first few letters of the debtor name. Sometimes partial searches work better than exact matches in their system.
0 coins
Khalil Urso
•That's actually how I found my missing filing last time. Their exact match search can be really finicky.
0 coins
Laila Fury
•UPDATE: Found it! Searched just "Advan" and it came up. The name in their system shows as "Advanced Precision Tooling L.L.C." with periods in the LLC part. No wonder the exact search wasn't working. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
0 coins