CA UCC statement service - Need help with rejected continuation filing

Thanks - I thought I was matching exactly but maybe I'm missing something subtle. The original shows all caps but I've been using proper case on the continuation. Could that be it?

Absolutely! CA requires exact case matching too. If original was 'MERIDIAN LOGISTICS LLC' in all caps, your continuation needs to be identical. Try resubmitting with the exact formatting from the original filing.

Never heard of that - does it actually catch the subtle formatting issues? My deadline is in 10 days and I can't afford another rejection.

Yeah it caught a space character difference I never would have seen. You upload both PDFs and it shows you exactly where the debtor names don't match. Way better than trying to compare them manually.

How much does something like that cost though? For a one-time filing issue seems expensive.

Worth it when you're dealing with a $780k lien that could become unperfected. The automated verification is much faster than going back and forth with rejections.

I did search by filing number but the display format might be different from what's actually on file? The search results show it one way but maybe the actual filed document has different formatting?

Exactly - the search display can be misleading. You need to actually view or download the original UCC-1 document to see the exact format that was filed. The search results sometimes standardize the display.

Tell me about it. I've had CA reject filings for the most ridiculous reasons. Once they rejected because I had two spaces instead of one between words in the debtor name.

Two spaces?? That's insane. How are you supposed to catch something like that visually?

You can't. That's when I started using document verification tools for anything important. Manual comparison just doesn't work for catching those kinds of microscopic differences.

That's what I'm worried about! What if I fix the name issue and then they find something else wrong with my filing?

exactly why i started using that document checker thing. at least it catches multiple issues at once instead of playing whack-a-mole with rejections

It's definitely a continuation - just trying to extend the 5-year period before it lapses. Using the right UCC-3 form for continuation, not amendment.

Good, just wanted to make sure. I've seen that mix-up cause rejections too. Sounds like your issue is purely the debtor name formatting then.

Wait, I thought UCC-3 was for amendments and UCC-1 continuations were separate? I'm confused about CA's forms now.

In CA, UCC-3 is used for continuations, amendments, AND terminations - you just check different boxes. The form type stays UCC-3 but the action type changes. Other states might do it differently.

Tried that but got transferred three times and finally was told they can't give specific advice about individual filings. Very unhelpful.

That's annoying. They used to be more helpful with troubleshooting rejections. Maybe budget cuts or policy changes.

That's really helpful context. So the business might be registered one way with the Secretary of State for corporate purposes but the UCC filing could have a different format?

Exactly. The UCC filing name doesn't have to match the exact corporate registration - it just has to match whatever was on the original UCC-1. Sometimes lawyers or lenders use slightly different formatting when they prepare the original filing.

This is why I always keep copies of the exact original filings in my client files. Trying to reconstruct the formatting later is a nightmare.

Invisible characters?? How is anyone supposed to catch that without specialized tools?

You can't with manual comparison. PDFs sometimes have formatting artifacts that copy over as invisible characters. That's why automated verification is so valuable for critical filings.

Will do. Planning to try the automated document verification approach first since manual comparison clearly isn't working. Deadline pressure is making me nervous about another rejection.

Smart move. Better to use tools that catch issues upfront than risk missing the continuation deadline.

Probably automated. Most states moved to computer screening for basic formatting issues. Saves them review time but creates more rejection headaches for filers.

That would explain why the rejections are so nitpicky. Computer matching would flag any tiny difference that a human reviewer might overlook.