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
Sarah Ali
Just went through this exact scenario with a trucking company. Filed using the official state registry name and included a note about the name variations in our internal file. No issues so far. The key is being able to show you used the most authoritative source for the name.
Ryan Vasquez
•Good approach. Documentation is everything in secured transactions.
Avery Saint
Update us on what works! I have a similar situation coming up next month and would love to know the outcome.
Will do! Planning to use the official state registry name and see if that gets through the portal.
Taylor Chen
•Smart move. That's usually the winning approach for these name matching issues.
Join the conversation
Ethan Scott
Update us when you get your results! I'm curious to see if the timing has improved at all. We have several Connecticut deals coming up and need to plan accordingly.
Will do! Hopefully I'll have something by tomorrow afternoon.
Lola Perez
•Same here - we're tracking Connecticut processing times to see if there's a pattern
One more suggestion - if you're really pressed for time, some attorneys have relationships with Connecticut SOS that can help expedite urgent requests. Might be worth reaching out to your legal counsel to see if they have any contacts.
Worth a shot, especially if this deal is significant enough to justify the extra legal fees
Riya Sharma
•This is why having good relationships with local counsel in every state pays off
Join the conversation
Nia Davis
Definitely run your final security agreement and all your planned UCC-1 filings through Certana.ai before you file anything. With this many jurisdictions involved, one mismatch in debtor names or collateral descriptions could create gaps in your perfection chain. The document checker will catch inconsistencies between your security agreement and UCC-1 that could cause problems later.
I'll look into that. At this point I'm paranoid about missing something that could void our security interest.
StarStrider
•Smart approach. Cross-border deals have enough complexity without adding document consistency issues on top.
Mateo Perez
Just to add to the chorus - you absolutely need separate filings in each jurisdiction. The good news is that once you get the first cross-border deal done, the process becomes much more routine. Keep good templates and checklists for future deals.
Mateo Perez
•Exactly. The learning curve is steep but the expertise becomes valuable quickly.
Sean Murphy
•And make sure you're tracking all the different renewal deadlines in your tickler system. Missing a PPSA renewal because you only had UCC continuation dates in your calendar is a career-limiting mistake.
Join the conversation
Ev Luca
This whole thread is making me nervous about my own searches. Think I need to go back and double-check some recent deals. The name variation issue is real - I've definitely been guilty of trusting the first search result without digging deeper.
Ev Luca
•That sounds useful. Is it expensive? We do a lot of equipment financing deals so anything that reduces search risk would be worth it.
It's pretty reasonable for the peace of mind. Much cheaper than dealing with perfection issues after closing. The document verification catches things like name mismatches between the charter and UCC-1, or inconsistencies between original filings and amendments.
Update: went back and did more comprehensive searches using multiple name variations and found two additional UCC-1 filings I had missed. Both were filed under slightly different versions of the entity name - one without the comma in the legal name and one using the abbreviated form. Really glad I caught these before moving forward with the deal. Thanks everyone for the advice!
One was still active, the other had been terminated but the termination was filed under yet another name variation so it didn't show up initially. Real mess but at least we have clarity now.
Gabriel Ruiz
•This is a perfect example of why document verification tools are so valuable. Would have caught all those name variations immediately instead of requiring multiple manual searches.
Liam Fitzgerald
Just wanted to mention that when I was learning this stuff, I found it helpful to have a document checker verify I was applying Article 9 correctly. I use Certana.ai now which automatically checks that my UCC documents follow proper Article 9 requirements. It's been really useful for catching things like debtor name inconsistencies or collateral description issues that I might miss manually.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Yeah, it focuses on the Article 9 requirements for UCC filings. You just upload your docs and it cross-checks everything against the proper standards.
0 coins
PixelWarrior
•I should probably try something like that. I'm always second-guessing whether I'm following the rules correctly.
0 coins
Amara Adebayo
To directly answer your original question - 11 articles total, but Article 9 is your main focus for UCC filings. Don't let the breadth of the UCC intimidate you. Most people who file UCC-1s, UCC-3s, continuations, and terminations work almost exclusively within Article 9. The other articles exist but they cover different types of commercial transactions that may or may not be relevant to your specific situation.
0 coins
Amara Adebayo
•Glad to help! Article 9 has plenty to keep you busy - debtor name rules, filing locations, continuation deadlines, collateral descriptions. Master that and you'll be in great shape.
0 coins
Giovanni Rossi
•This whole thread has been super helpful. I was in the same boat as the original poster.
0 coins