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
Mei Wong
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.
Mei Wong
•Article 9 compliance checklists are lifesavers. I also include checking for recent corporate changes and verifying the collateral description format.
Checklists plus automated verification tools make for a pretty bulletproof Article 9 UCC filing process.
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.
Happy to help! Hopefully you can learn from my stress and avoid the same mistake.
Carmen Vega
•Welcome to the world of Article 9 UCC filings! It gets easier but you never stop being paranoid about the details.
Join the conversation
Owen Jenkins
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.
Anna Stewart
•This makes a lot of sense. Partial termination for the actual collateral, using the original name format. Thanks for the practical advice.
Lilah Brooks
•Agreed, this is the cleanest approach. Covers all the bases without overcomplicating things.
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.
Anna Stewart
•Good point. I'll verify the filing number before submitting. Probably will try that Certana tool to double-check everything.
Smart move. Better to catch any issues before filing than deal with rejections and delays.
Join the conversation
Chris Elmeda
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.
Chris Elmeda
•We looked at reducing the collateral scope or allowing them to pay down a portion of the loan to release some equipment. Anything that would have been cheaper than litigation.
PaulineW
•But then you're rewarding bad behavior. If you settle, other borrowers will think they can pull the same trick.
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?
That's a good point. I'll definitely post an update once we know more. Meeting with our attorney tomorrow to review the documentation.
Marcus Marsh
•Yeah please keep us posted. These repudiation cases are always educational for the rest of us dealing with UCC issues.
Join the conversation
Quick question - you mentioned the equipment is losing value in storage. How long do you have to wait between sending 9-608 notices and actually disposing of the collateral? Is there a minimum waiting period?
Generally 10 days after sending notice, but check your state's version of 9-608. Some states have variations. The key is that disposal must occur within a reasonable time after default, but you can't rush the notice period.
Aria Khan
•And remember that "reasonable time" for disposal depends on the type of collateral. Perishable goods need faster disposal than equipment, but depreciating assets like CNC machinery shouldn't sit indefinitely either.
We actually started using that Certana document checker tool someone mentioned earlier for our UCC compliance reviews. Really helpful for complex disposal situations where you need to verify all the secured party filings and make sure there are no debtor name mismatches that could affect notice requirements. Uploaded our UCC-1 and found a minor discrepancy in how we'd formatted the debtor's business name compared to their charter documents. Could have caused problems with 9-608 notice validity if we hadn't caught it.
Anna Xian
•That's exactly the kind of detail that could derail a disposal process. Might be worth checking our filings too before we send notices.
Sunny Wang
•Yeah debtor name accuracy is critical for 9-608 notice requirements. Any mismatch gives them grounds to challenge the whole disposal process.
William Schwarz
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.
0 coins
Jessica Nguyen
•That's probably our next step. We might have been using an outdated version of the company name if they've had any corporate changes recently.
0 coins
Ruby Garcia
•Yeah definitely check for any recent amendments or changes. I've seen companies add or drop words like 'Holdings' or change their state of incorporation which affects the registered name.
0 coins
Lauren Johnson
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.
0 coins
Jessica Nguyen
•This is really helpful - sounds like the automated document comparison might catch details we're missing in manual review. Worth trying before another potentially failed submission.
0 coins
Jade Santiago
•The nice thing about tools like that is you can check multiple document combinations - articles, security agreement, previous UCC filings - to see where the inconsistencies are coming from.
0 coins