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
Wisconsin UCC filings have a really low tolerance for any kind of name variation. I've seen rejections for things like 'Co.' vs 'Company' and 'Corp' vs 'Corporation'. The key is finding the exact registered name in their system and using that character-for-character.
That should do it. Wisconsin is consistent once you get the name exactly right. Good luck with the refiling!
Let us know how it goes. Always curious to hear if these name fixes actually solve the problem or if there's some other hidden issue.
Jamal Brown
For future wisconsin UCC filings, I'd recommend double-checking everything before you file. The rejection process wastes so much time when you're on tight deadlines like this.
Natalie Khan
•Definitely learned my lesson on this one. Going to be much more careful about name matching going forward.
Jamal Brown
•It's a common mistake, don't feel bad. Wisconsin just happens to be one of the stricter states for exact name matching.
Join the conversation
Jacinda Yu
Been there! Lost UCC control due to a name change we thought we handled correctly. The stress of potentially losing perfection on a multi-million dollar loan is intense. Hope you get it sorted out quickly.
Chris Elmeda
•Thanks. It's definitely keeping me up at night knowing we could lose our security interest if this isn't resolved properly.
Jacinda Yu
•You'll get through it. Just stay on top of the timing and consider all your options - new filing, corrective amendment, or fixing the existing chain.
Double-check that your borrower's name change was actually properly registered with the state too. Sometimes companies think they've changed their legal name but haven't completed all the required filings, which can create additional confusion in the UCC system.
That Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier actually helps with that too - it can verify business registration status as part of the document checking process.
Smart approach. Better to verify everything is aligned before filing any corrections or new UCCs.
Join the conversation
One more verification step I always do - I call the registered agent if I have any doubts about the name format. They usually have the correct legal name readily available and can confirm what you found in the SOS database.
Amaya Watson
•That's a good idea. Do registered agents usually respond quickly to those kinds of calls?
Most professional registered agent services are pretty responsive. If it's the company's own lawyer or CPA serving as registered agent, it might take longer.
Grant Vikers
I just want to emphasize what others have said - this verification step is absolutely critical. I've seen million-dollar deals fall apart because someone got lazy with the debtor name verification. The few extra minutes of research can save you from major legal headaches later.
Agreed. It's one of those things that seems minor but can completely destroy your security interest.
Thanks everyone. I'm definitely going to triple-check everything before I submit this UCC-1. Better safe than sorry.
Join the conversation
I'm dealing with a similar situation but with fixture filings. The 2022 amendments seem to have some specific language about real estate descriptions that I'm trying to parse. Anyone have experience with that aspect?
That's helpful. I've been erring on the side of more detail rather than less, but wasn't sure if that was the right approach.
The Certana tool I mentioned earlier also checks fixture filing descriptions against common rejection reasons. Might be worth a look for your situation.
Jamal Carter
Just wanted to follow up on this thread - I ended up doing a targeted review of our highest-risk filings based on the advice here. Found 12 that needed UCC-3 amendments to bring the debtor names into compliance. Better to be proactive than get surprised during a continuation or amendment down the road. Thanks everyone for the insights!
Zara Khan
•Smart approach! Proactive compliance is always better than reactive fire-fighting.
Sean Murphy
•Glad this thread was helpful. I think I'm going to take a similar targeted approach with our portfolio.
Amara Oluwaseyi
The real issue is that Maryland doesn't require exact debtor name matching when UCCs are filed. So secured parties sometimes use shortened versions or trade names instead of the full legal entity name. This creates a mess for searchers because you never know what variation might have been used on a filing. Other states are much stricter about this.
0 coins
Giovanni Rossi
•It's a catch-22 though. Strict name matching requirements can invalidate filings over minor errors. There's a balance between flexibility and searchability.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Maktoum
•True, but the current system errs too far on the flexible side. The noise-to-signal ratio in Maryland searches is terrible.
0 coins
Dylan Mitchell
Update: I ended up finding 3 legitimate UCC filings for my debtor out of the 6 initial results. Two were continuations of the same original filing, and one was a separate equipment loan from last year. Thanks everyone for the tips. The combination of address cross-referencing and using a document verification tool made this much more manageable than trying to sort through everything manually. Maryland definitely needs to upgrade their search system though. This process shouldn't be this complicated.
0 coins
Dmitry Petrov
•Did the document verification tool catch anything you would have missed doing it manually?
0 coins
Dylan Mitchell
•Actually yes - it flagged one filing where the debtor address was slightly different but the entity was the same. I might have dismissed that one as a false positive if I was doing it by hand.
0 coins