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
QuantumQuest
Have you considered reaching out to the lenders directly? If you know who the secured parties are from the loan documents, they might be able to provide you with the UCC filing numbers or copies of the filings.
QuantumQuest
•Worst they can say is no. Some lenders are pretty helpful with this stuff especially if you explain it's for due diligence purposes.
Just make sure you get written confirmation of any UCC info they provide. Don't just take their word for it over the phone.
Yara Haddad
UPDATE: Used Certana.ai like some of you suggested and found the issue. The company had 2 different legal entity names in their various filings - one with 'Incorporated' and one with 'Inc.' Mississippi's system treated these as completely different entities even though they're the same company. The verification tool caught the discrepancy immediately.
Mei Chen
•Nice catch. That kind of name inconsistency could have caused major issues if you'd missed those filings in your due diligence.
Thanks everyone for the help! Definitely learned my lesson about being more systematic with name variations in Mississippi searches.
Join the conversation
Update: I tried the Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier and it actually found two UCC-1 filings that weren't showing up in my Idaho SOS searches. Turns out there was a slight variation in how the debtor name was entered - one filing had 'Mountain View Equipment LLC' and another had 'MountainView Equipment LLC' (no space). The state search wasn't catching both variations but the automated cross-check did.
Spacing differences in debtor names are such a common issue. Really shows how important it is to do comprehensive searches rather than relying on a single search attempt.
Miguel Diaz
•This is a great example of why manual searches can miss critical information. Those small variations in names can completely change the search results.
Zainab Ahmed
Thanks for the update! This thread has been really helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation in Montana and I'm going to try some of these suggestions. The state UCC search systems really need to be more standardized across the board.
Montana's system is actually pretty good compared to some other states, but yeah, the lack of standardization is definitely a problem industry-wide.
AstroAlpha
•Hopefully the Uniform Commercial Code will eventually lead to more uniform search systems, but I'm not holding my breath.
Join the conversation
Before you refile, definitely double-check that your debtor name exactly matches the organizational documents. Would hate for you to fix the 9-102(65) issue only to get rejected for a name mismatch.
Aaron Lee
•Never hurts to verify though. I've seen filings rejected for missing a comma in the legal name.
Absolutely. Name precision is critical. Even minor punctuation differences can trigger rejections.
One more thought - if you're claiming rights to production data as records under 9-102(65), make sure your security agreement actually grants you those rights. The UCC-1 can't perfect something the security agreement doesn't create.
Perfect. Just wanted to make sure the documents align. That would be another reason for rejection.
This is why I always review the security agreement and UCC-1 together before filing. Too easy to miss these connections.
Join the conversation
Omar Hassan
Make sure you're using the most current version of the UCC-3 form too. CA updated their forms earlier this year and they'll reject old versions even if everything else is perfect.
NightOwl42
•Good catch - I downloaded the form from their website but let me double-check it's the newest version.
Chloe Taylor
•The form version date is usually in small print at the bottom. Easy to miss but CA definitely checks.
ShadowHunter
Once you get this sorted, make sure to save a clean copy of exactly how CA has the debtor information formatted. Will save you headaches on future filings for this same debtor.
Smart system. I should start doing that too instead of looking up the original filing every time.
Just make sure to update your spreadsheet if you ever file amendments that change the debtor information. Learned that lesson the hard way.
Sadie Benitez
Your situation sounds standard. Bank issues LC to back your lease, takes security interest in business assets or LC proceeds to cover their exposure, files UCC-1 to perfect that security interest. Pretty routine commercial lending practice.
0 coins
Laila Prince
•That's fair. Commercial lending involves a lot of protective filings that seem redundant but serve important legal purposes.
0 coins
Isabel Vega
•At least UCC filings are public record so you can see exactly what security interests are filed against your business.
0 coins
Dominique Adams
Bottom line: if your bank says they need the UCC filing for the LC arrangement, they probably do. It's about protecting their position as a secured creditor. Just make sure all the paperwork aligns and you should be good to proceed with your equipment lease.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Thanks everyone. Sounds like this is normal and I just need to get the filing done correctly. Appreciate all the insights.
0 coins
TommyKapitz
•Good luck with the equipment lease! Once you get through the paperwork maze, the actual business operations are much more straightforward.
0 coins