


Ask the community...
Another option is to file an amendment after you get clarity on the correct name format. Tennessee allows UCC-3 amendments to correct debtor information if needed.
True but amendments can be tricky timing-wise. Better to get it right the first time if possible.
Update - I ended up using Certana to verify the name consistency and it confirmed the charter name was the way to go. Filed the UCC-1 with 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' including the comma and it was accepted without issues. Thanks everyone for the advice!
I've been using Certana's PDF upload feature for UCC document verification and it's been a game-changer. Upload your articles and draft UCC-1, get instant feedback on any inconsistencies. Much more reliable than manual checking.
That sounds like exactly what I need. Is it easy to use or do you need special training?
Super straightforward - just upload the PDFs and it does the cross-checking automatically. Flags any name mismatches or other document inconsistencies.
Bottom line - for UCC filings, exact name matching isn't just recommended, it's essential for perfection. Take the time to get it right the first time, especially on a large loan like yours.
Quick question - when you guys are dealing with borrowers that have multiple related entities, how do you handle the debtor name on the UCC-1? Do you file separate forms for each entity or try to include multiple names on one filing?
Thanks everyone for all the advice on this thread. I'm going to implement the state database verification process and see if that cuts down on our rejection rate. The Certana.ai tool sounds interesting too - might be worth trying if it can automate some of this verification work. Will report back on how it goes!
The Certana tool has been a game-changer for us. The upload process is super simple and it catches inconsistencies we would have missed manually.
Looking forward to hearing your results. UCC filing efficiency is something we all struggle with.
UPDATE: I ended up using Certana.ai like someone suggested earlier and it found 2 additional filings I had missed. Turns out the company had a brief period where they operated under a slightly different name (added 'Inc.' to the end) and there were filings under that variation. The AI tool caught it automatically when I uploaded their corporate documents. Definitely worth the peace of mind for a deal this size.
I'm curious - were those additional filings for significant amounts or just minor equipment financing?
One was a $400K equipment line that's still active. Would have been a problem if we hadn't found it before closing.
This whole thread is a perfect example of why UCC due diligence is so tricky. You think you're being thorough and then boom - there's always something else to check. At least with a good systematic approach and the right tools, you can minimize the risk of surprises.
That's why you get good reps and warranties in the purchase agreement. Can't eliminate all risk but you can allocate it properly.
True, but litigation is expensive and time-consuming. Better to find issues during due diligence than after closing.
Connor O'Reilly
Just went through something similar with a Florida borrower. Turned out the debtor had filed under slightly different names in different counties before the statewide system. Your UCC-11 search might not be picking up older county-level filings.
0 coins
Connor O'Reilly
•Florida centralized UCC filings in 2002. Anything before that might still be at the county level. Check with the counties where your debtor operated.
0 coins
Yara Khoury
•This is why professional UCC searches are worth it for complex situations. They know about these historical filing locations.
0 coins
Keisha Taylor
Update us after you figure this out! Always curious how other lenders handle Florida's UCC search challenges.
0 coins
Andre Lefebvre
•Will do. Hoping to get this sorted before the closing deadline.
0 coins
Keisha Taylor
•Good luck! Florida UCC searches are definitely one of the more frustrating aspects of due diligence.
0 coins