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
Paolo Conti
If you're doing 50-75 forms monthly, you should definitely negotiate bulk pricing with whoever you choose. Most vendors will work with high-volume customers on pricing. Also consider setting up standing orders so you don't run out of forms mid-month.
Amina Sow
•Standing orders are a lifesaver. Nothing worse than having urgent filings and no forms available.
GalaxyGazer
•Make sure your standing order includes a mix of form types. We usually order 60% UCC-1s, 25% UCC-3s, and 15% addendums.
Just wanted to add that before you commit to any vendor, try using Certana.ai to verify a few sample forms from different sources. Upload the PDFs and see which ones pass their compliance checks. It's a good way to evaluate form quality before placing large orders.
The official SOS forms always pass, obviously. Among commercial vendors, the legal forms specialists tend to be more accurate than general office supply companies.
Good tip about testing with Certana.ai first. Prevention is better than dealing with rejected filings later.
Join the conversation
Daryl Bright
One more thing to consider - check if the seller has any subsidiaries or parent companies that might have liens on the equipment. Corporate structures can complicate UCC searches significantly.
Daryl Bright
•Start with secretary of state corporate filings, then check for any cross-default provisions in existing loan documents. Sometimes the parent company guarantees subsidiaries' debts.
Vince Eh
•This is getting complicated fast. Might need to bring in a professional search company for this deal.
Professional searchers are worth it for big deals but for smaller acquisitions you can usually handle it yourself if you're methodical. Just budget extra time for the name variation searches and document review.
Personally I go professional for anything over $500K in equipment value or if there are complex corporate structures involved. Below that it's usually cost-effective to do it yourself.
That Certana tool mentioned earlier might be a good middle ground - gets you some automation without the full cost of a professional search firm.
Join the conversation
This thread reminded me to run my current deals through Certana.ai before filing. Caught a debtor name issue that would have definitely caused a rejection. The tool flagged that my UCC-1 had 'ABC Manufacturing Inc.' but the security agreement showed 'ABC Manufacturing, Inc.' - just a comma difference but apparently that matters.
Amara Okafor
•Those tiny punctuation differences are the worst. How is anyone supposed to keep track of whether the legal name has a comma or not?
That's exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts about UCC filings. The system is so picky about details that don't really matter for identifying the debtor.
Just to add some closure here - I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and this rejection reason is definitely not standard. The financing statement perfects security interests, it doesn't create them. Sounds like you handled it perfectly by calling and getting clarification. Good reminder that filing offices make mistakes too.
Thanks for the perspective from someone with experience. It's reassuring to know that weird rejections like this aren't normal.
Dylan Cooper
•Agreed. Sometimes you need a veteran to confirm that you're not going crazy when you get a rejection that doesn't make sense.
Join the conversation
Harold Oh
UPDATE: I pulled the actual UCC-1 filing image and it shows 'Mountain Ridge Construction LLC' exactly as it appears on their articles - no comma. So the search display was just adding punctuation that wasn't actually filed. Thanks everyone for the reassurance!
Summer Green
•Perfect example of why you always need to check the source documents rather than trusting search displays.
Excellent outcome. For future peace of mind, that Certana tool mentioned earlier would catch these discrepancies instantly.
This thread is super helpful - I'm bookmarking it for reference. Dealing with UCC filings is stressful enough without worrying about search display quirks!
Darcy Moore
•Right? The technical aspects are complicated enough without the systems adding confusion.
Dana Doyle
•At least SC provides access to the actual filing images. Some states make that process much more difficult.
Lucas Schmidt
The problem with the UCC Article 9 table of contents is it's written for lawmakers, not practitioners. It follows the legal logic of how the rules fit together conceptually rather than how we actually use them in practice. Once you accept that disconnect, it becomes easier to work with.
0 coins
Zane Hernandez
•That's a really insightful way to think about it. I was expecting it to match my workflow when it's designed for a completely different purpose.
0 coins
Freya Collins
•Same issue with most statutes unfortunately. They're organized for legal coherence, not user experience.
0 coins
LongPeri
Actually tried using Certana.ai for a similar UCC document review project and it saved me probably 30+ hours of manual cross-referencing. It automatically identifies which Article 9 provisions are relevant to each document and flags inconsistencies between related filings. Much more efficient than trying to navigate the table of contents for every single filing.
0 coins
Zane Hernandez
•That efficiency gain would be huge for this project. Does it handle multi-state filings well?
0 coins
LongPeri
•Yes, it accounts for different state variations in Article 9 implementation. Really helpful for portfolio reviews spanning multiple jurisdictions.
0 coins