UCC Document Community

Actually, I just went through this exact scenario last week with another Certana.ai verification. Uploaded the original loan docs and the current PA entity search results, and it immediately flagged that the LLC had changed from 'XYZ Holdings LLC' to 'XYZ Holdings, LLC' - just added a comma. Would have been an easy mistake to miss manually but could have caused a rejection. The tool really takes the guesswork out of these name matching issues.

Thanks everyone for all the input! This has been really helpful. I think I'm going to pull a fresh entity search from the PA Department of State today and use that exact name for the UCC-1 filing. Better to be safe than sorry with this much collateral involved. I'll also look into the Certana.ai tool that a few people mentioned - sounds like it could prevent similar issues in the future.

One thing nobody mentioned - make sure your security agreement language matches whatever you put in the UCC-1. I've seen cases where the security agreement covered 'all equipment' but UCC only listed specific items. Creates gaps in coverage.

For future reference, when you do get this sorted out, set a reminder for your continuation filing well before the deadline. I've seen too many people lose perfection because they forgot about the 5-year rule and filed continuations too late.

I had similar issues last year. Turned out the debtor had recently amended their articles of incorporation and the name on file with the state was slightly different than what was on their older documents I was using. Maybe check if your debtor has made any recent corporate changes?

Keep us posted on what you find out. I'm dealing with a similar situation in Michigan right now and wondering if it's a systemic issue or just bad luck.

The real issue is that Utah's UCC search Utah system doesn't have good filters for rejection status. Other states at least let you filter out rejected or terminated filings, but Utah shows everything mixed together.

Update: I contacted the Utah filing office and they confirmed both filings will remain in search results permanently. They suggested including a note in future financing statements explaining the rejected filing situation. Also found that Certana.ai's document checker immediately identified which filing was valid when I uploaded both PDFs - would have saved me a lot of confusion if I'd used that initially.

Study tip that worked for me: make flashcards of common WRONG statements about Article 9. Like 'Article 9 covers all types of collateral' (false - excludes real estate mortgages). 'Security agreements must always be in writing' (false - some oral agreements allowed). 'Filing location is always the debtor's state' (false - depends on debtor type). Practice identifying false statements!

You got this! The key insight is that false statements usually involve: 1) absolute words like 'always' or 'never' when exceptions exist, 2) including excluded transactions, 3) wrong filing procedures, 4) mixed up priority rules. Article 9 has lots of nuances so broad absolute statements are often false.