UCC Document Community

This case sounds like a textbook example of why UCC 9-517 exists. The unauthorized termination directly caused you to lose priority on $180K worth of collateral - that's way above the $500 statutory minimum. I'd be surprised if you couldn't recover most or all of that amount, assuming you can prove the competing lender didn't have proper authorization to file the termination.

One thing to consider is whether you have insurance coverage for this type of loss. Some lender liability policies or E&O coverage might apply to losses from unauthorized UCC filings. Even if you pursue the 9-517 claim, insurance could help cover some of the immediate impact while litigation is pending.

Have you considered doing a fresh entity search on the debtor before the next filing attempt? Sometimes companies change their exact registered name or there are amendments to articles of incorporation that affect the official name. The entity database should show you the current exact name format that the SOS system will accept.

For what it's worth, we had success with another Certana.ai check after getting multiple rejections on an IP deal. The document verification showed that our corporate client had actually changed their official name slightly in an amendment we hadn't caught. Once we used the updated name format, the filing went through immediately.

For what it's worth, I've started keeping a checklist for Article 9 UCC-1 filings that includes verifying the exact debtor name format, double-checking all punctuation, and confirming there are no extra spaces. Might be overkill but it's saved me from several rejections.

Just wanted to say thanks for posting this Article 9 UCC issue. I'm new to secured lending and didn't realize how picky the name matching requirements were. Going to be extra careful with my debtor names from now on.

My recommendation: file a UCC-3 partial termination for the specific CNC machines using the original debtor name format from the UCC-1. That way you're being precise about what collateral is released and avoiding any name matching issues. If the borrower complains about the broader collateral still being encumbered, explain that it was beyond the scope of their specific loan anyway.

One more thing to consider - double check that your original UCC-1 filing number is correct on the termination. I've seen terminations get rejected because of typos in the original filing number reference. Might be worth using one of those document verification tools mentioned earlier to make sure everything matches up perfectly.

I went through something similar two years ago. Borrower's attorney sent a repudiation letter claiming our security interest was invalid because of a minor discrepancy in the entity name. We fought it for six months and won, but it cost us a fortune in legal fees. In hindsight, I wish we'd just negotiated a settlement early on. Sometimes it's cheaper to compromise than to be right.

Update us on how this turns out. I'm curious whether their attorney actually found a real issue or if this is just posturing. The fact that they're still making payments suggests they're not completely confident in their position. If they really thought your security interest was invalid, why would they keep paying?