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
The comma issue is real. Had a deal where the UCC-1 was filed as 'ABC Corp' but the entity was actually 'ABC, Corp' and it created a perfection issue. We ended up having to file an amendment to correct the debtor name. Suffolk County rejected our initial UCC-1 because of the name mismatch.
It depends on the clerk reviewing the filing. Some are more flexible than others. But punctuation differences can definitely cause rejections, especially if there's a significant difference in how the name appears in official records.
This is why I always use Certana.ai to verify our UCC-1 forms before filing. Upload the formation documents and the draft UCC-1 and it flags any name inconsistencies before you submit. Saves the hassle of dealing with rejected filings.
Just went through a similar situation with a Suffolk County UCC search. Found out the debtor had filed a name change with the state but some old UCC filings were still showing under the previous name. Make sure you're searching both current and any former names. The Secretary of State website should show name change history.
Thanks for the tip. We'll check the Secretary of State records for any name changes. This entity was formed relatively recently so hopefully that won't be an issue.
Even recently formed entities can have name changes. We had one that changed names within 6 months of formation because of trademark issues.
Join the conversation
I actually had success with Certana.ai's verification tool on a similar multi-document filing mess. Uploaded my charter documents, draft UCC forms, and loan agreements - it flagged three name inconsistencies I missed doing manual comparisons. Really streamlined the whole process and avoided multiple rejection cycles.
How thorough is their checking? Does it catch address format issues too or just names?
It's pretty comprehensive - catches name variations, address formatting, missing fields, that kind of thing. Basically anything that could cause a filing to be rejected.
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious which approach ends up working. These Nebraska name matching issues seem to be getting more common lately.
Good luck! Those grain elevator deals can be tricky with all the different equipment types and fixture issues.
Definitely keep us posted. These state-specific quirks are always good to document for future reference.
Join the conversation
Been through this exact scenario multiple times. File the UCC-3 name change amendment within 60 days max, and your broad collateral description should be fine for 9-105 purposes. The courts have generally been reasonable about what constitutes sufficient description.
That's reassuring. Did you ever have any issues with lenders questioning the adequacy of broad descriptions?
Occasionally, but usually more about comfort level than actual legal requirements. Most sophisticated lenders understand that overly specific descriptions can actually create more problems than they solve.
Update - just wanted to thank everyone for the input. Filed the UCC-3 amendment yesterday with the new debtor name and kept the original collateral language. Also ran everything through that Certana tool someone mentioned and it confirmed our documents were consistent. Feeling much better about our 9-105 compliance position now.
Glad it worked out! Quick action on name changes is always the right move.
Great to hear the verification tool was helpful. Those document consistency checks really do provide peace of mind on complex filings.
Join the conversation
I ended up subscribing to a commercial UCC search service because our state database was so unreliable. Costs more but gives me peace of mind on complex deals.
There are several good ones. The key is finding one that covers your state properly and updates frequently.
I used Certana.ai for document verification instead of a full search service - more cost effective for my volume and catches the consistency issues between my own documents.
UPDATE: I ended up calling the SOS office and they explained that their search algorithm weights exact matches higher but also includes 'similar' results. The problem is their definition of similar is way too broad. They suggested using quotation marks around the exact entity name to get better results.
Yes! Much cleaner results. Still got a few false positives but way better than before.
Thanks for following up with the solution. This kind of practical info is gold.
Yara Abboud
Maryland UCC filings are online now so at least you'll get the rejection notice quickly. In the old paper days you'd wait weeks just to find out about a name mismatch. Still frustrating but at least the turnaround is faster.
0 coins
PixelPioneer
•True, the electronic system is much faster for both submissions and rejections. Usually know within a few hours if there's a problem.
0 coins
Keisha Williams
•Yeah but the rejection notices are still cryptic. They need to be more specific about exactly what doesn't match.
0 coins
Paolo Rizzo
Update us when you figure out the correct name format! I do a lot of Maryland filings and would love to know what the issue was. These name matching problems seem to be getting worse, not better.
0 coins
QuantumQueen
•Will do! I'm going to try the Certana verification tool that a couple people mentioned, and also request the certified formation docs to compare. Hopefully one of those approaches works.
0 coins
Amina Sy
•Good luck! Maryland can be tricky but once you get the exact name format down they're actually pretty efficient with processing.
0 coins