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
PixelWarrior
This is why I charge extra for CA UCC filings. The rejection rate is so high that I have to build in time for potential refiling. Other states are much more reasonable about minor name variations.
Zara Ahmed
•That makes sense. CA seems uniquely difficult compared to other jurisdictions I've worked with.
PixelWarrior
•CA and NY are the pickiest. Most other states have some tolerance for minor formatting differences.
Just refile with the exact name from the entity database and you'll be fine. Make sure to include that comma. CA's system is annoying but predictable once you understand the rules.
Good plan. The refiling should go through without issues if the name matches exactly.
For future filings, those document verification tools mentioned earlier really do help catch these issues upfront.
Omar Fawzi
UPDATE: I called the Florida SOS office this morning and they found our filing immediately using the filing number. The rep said there was a technical issue with their search index that affected filings from that particular week. They're working on fixing it and said it should be searchable within 24-48 hours. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
0 coins
Malik Robinson
•This makes me feel so much better about my upcoming filing.
0 coins
Javier Garcia
•Glad it worked out! For future filings, definitely consider using a verification tool like Certana.ai to catch any potential issues before they become problems.
0 coins
Chloe Wilson
This is exactly why I always do a test search immediately after filing. Catches these issues early.
0 coins
Keisha Williams
•That's smart. I usually wait a day or two but I'll start checking right away from now on.
0 coins
Oliver Fischer
•Same here. If there's going to be a problem, better to find out sooner rather than later.
0 coins