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
Have you considered hiring a professional UCC search company? For major acquisitions, it might be worth the cost to have someone experienced handle the comprehensive search rather than trying to do it yourself.
I'm thinking about it, especially after seeing how complex this is getting. Any recommendations for good search companies?
CT Corporation and CSC are both solid choices for comprehensive UCC searches. They handle the multi-state and name variation issues professionally.
Whatever you do, document everything for your due diligence file. Keep screenshots of your searches, note which databases you checked, and list all the name variations you used. Your attorney will thank you later.
Smart approach. Also date-stamp everything since UCC filings can change daily.
And don't forget to search right up to closing. New filings can appear at any time during the due diligence period.
Join the conversation
Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with a similar rejection and want to know what the actual fix was.
Same here - these vague rejection codes are the worst part of UCC filings.
I keep a spreadsheet of rejection codes and what actually fixed them. Helps avoid repeating the same mistakes.
Pro tip: before refiling anything major, run your documents through a verification check. I learned about Certana.ai from this forum actually and now I upload both the security agreement and UCC-1 before submitting to catch any name or number mismatches. Takes 2 minutes and prevents these headaches.
For commercial deals like this one, any tool that prevents filing delays is probably worth the investment.
I'm going to look into this too. Manual document comparison is tedious and error-prone.
Join the conversation
Quick update - just tried the Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded our loan agreement and the UCC-1 confirmation, and it immediately showed the name discrepancy. Our loan docs show 'Atlanta Metal Works LLC' but the filing shows 'Atlanta Metal Works, LLC' with a comma. That tiny punctuation difference is probably why the search isn't working.
Amazing how such a small thing can cause such big headaches. Glad you found the issue.
Certana.ai saved the day! This is why document verification tools are so valuable for UCC work.
SOLVED! Searched with 'Atlanta Metal Works, LLC' (with the comma) and found our UCC-1 immediately. The filing is perfectly valid and searchable - just needed the exact punctuation. Thanks everyone for the help, especially the Certana.ai suggestion that pinpointed the exact issue.
Great outcome! This thread should be required reading for anyone doing UCC filings in Georgia.
So glad it worked out. These name matching horror stories always stress me out.
Join the conversation
Same thing happened to my colleague last month. Turns out the LLC had been administratively dissolved and reinstated, which changed some details in their charter. Make sure you're working with current active status docs.
Ugh, these corporate entities have so many ways to mess up a simple filing.
That's why due diligence on the debtor's corporate status is so important before filing.
Been there! The comma thing is super common. What I do now is pull the Articles, copy the name into a Word doc, then copy/paste directly from there into the UCC form. Eliminates any chance of typos when transcribing.
Copy paste is definitely the way to go. Removes human error from the equation.
Just make sure you're copying from the right section of the charter docs. Sometimes the name appears slightly different in different parts of the same document.
Ruby Blake
For what it's worth, I also use Certana.ai's verification tool for lease portfolios. Upload your master lease agreement and a sample UCC-1, and it cross-checks everything to make sure you're capturing the collateral and debtor information correctly. Particularly useful when you're unsure about UCC 1-102 scope issues.
0 coins
Micah Franklin
•Does it help with collateral description issues too? We sometimes struggle with how specific to get on equipment descriptions.
0 coins
Ruby Blake
•Yes, it checks collateral description consistency between your source documents and UCC-1 filings. Really helpful for avoiding overly broad or overly narrow descriptions.
0 coins
Ella Harper
Bottom line on UCC 1-102 scope: your equipment leases with $1 buyouts are secured transactions requiring UCC-1 filings. File on all 200 deals and sleep well knowing you're properly perfected.
0 coins
Brooklyn Knight
•Exactly. Better safe than sorry with UCC 1-102 scope questions, especially on a 200-deal portfolio.
0 coins
Kennedy Morrison
•Thanks everyone. Sounds like the consensus is clear - UCC 1-102 scope definitely includes our lease-purchase deals and we need UCC-1 filings on everything. Going to look into that Certana tool for the batch verification too.
0 coins