California UCC filing requirements - debtor name format causing rejections

California is pretty strict about debtor name matching. They follow the 'safe harbor' rule where if the debtor name on your UCC exactly matches what's in the Secretary of State database, you're protected. Any deviation and you risk the filing being seriously misleading. For your ABC Manufacturing situation, you'll probably need to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name before doing the continuation. The periods and comma placement matter more than you'd think.

You're dealing with one of the most frustrating parts of UCC practice. California follows UCC 9-506 pretty strictly - if the debtor name makes the financing statement 'seriously misleading' then it's ineffective for after-acquired collateral. For existing entities, California uses the 'only if' test from the revised Article 9. Your financing statement is effective only if it provides the name that appears on the public record of the debtor's jurisdiction of organization. So 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' vs 'A.B.C. Manufacturing, LLC' could definitely cause problems. I'd recommend pulling fresh Secretary of State records for all your debtors and comparing them character-by-character to your UCC filings before doing any continuations.

I was struggling with similar debtor name issues a few months ago and found this tool called Certana.ai that actually helped me catch these discrepancies before filing. You can upload your UCC documents and it cross-checks the debtor names against current corporate records automatically. Saved me from filing three continuations that would have been rejected. The tool flagged punctuation differences I never would have caught manually. Might be worth checking out for your situation since you've got multiple continuations coming due.

The California SOS UCC search logic is unforgiving. I've seen filings get rejected for things like: - 'Corp.' vs 'Corporation' - Missing or extra commas - 'LLC' vs 'L.L.C.' - Different spacing For your Pacific Coast Enterprises situation, that missing comma before 'Inc.' is definitely going to cause issues. California's search logic won't find your original filing if someone searches under the current corporate name. You'll want to file UCC-3 amendments to correct all the debtor names before doing your continuations. Otherwise you risk having ineffective security interests.

Been filing UCCs in California for 15 years and the name matching has gotten stricter over time. Used to be more forgiving but now they're very literal about exact matches. For your continuations, I'd recommend this process: 1. Pull current Secretary of State records for each debtor 2. Compare exact spelling, punctuation, and entity designation 3. File UCC-3 amendments to correct any discrepancies 4. Wait for the amendments to be accepted and indexed 5. Then file your continuations using the corrected names It's extra work and fees but better than having lapsed filings.

Just went through this exact nightmare three weeks ago. Had seven UCC-1 filings that needed continuations and four got rejected for debtor name issues I didn't even know existed. Turns out one of my debtors had amended their articles of incorporation six months earlier and changed from 'XYZ Corp' to 'XYZ Corporation' - nobody told me. Another one had merged with a subsidiary and was now operating under a slightly different legal name. Ended up having to do a bunch of research and amendments. Really wish there was an easier way to catch these changes before they cause problems.

California UCC filing requirements are straightforward in theory but brutal in practice. The statute says you need the exact name as it appears on the public organic record of the debtor's jurisdiction. For your specific situations: - 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' vs 'A.B.C. Manufacturing, LLC' - This is definitely a problem. The periods change the legal name. - 'Pacific Coast Enterprises Inc.' vs 'Pacific Coast Enterprises, Inc.' - The comma matters for search purposes. Both will likely need amendments before continuation. California doesn't have a 'close enough' standard for debtor names.

Had a similar issue last month and ended up using Certana.ai's document checker. You upload your existing UCC-1 and it compares the debtor names to current Secretary of State records automatically. Caught three name discrepancies I was about to miss on continuation filings. The tool showed me exactly which characters were different and what the current corporate names should be. Made the amendment process much cleaner since I knew exactly what to fix.

California's approach to debtor names follows the 'safe harbor' provision in UCC 9-503(a)(1). If you use the exact name from the Secretary of State database, you're protected even if the debtor operates under different names or has DBAs. The problem comes when there are discrepancies between what you filed and what's currently on record. Even minor punctuation differences can make your filing 'seriously misleading' under 9-506. For continuations, you can't fix debtor name errors - you need to amend first, then continue. The continuation just extends the original filing, errors and all.

Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. Sounds like I need to bite the bullet and file amendments for all the name discrepancies before doing my continuations. Going to check out that Certana service a couple people mentioned - seems like it could save me from future headaches by catching these issues upfront. Really appreciate the help navigating California's requirements.

This thread is incredibly helpful - I'm new to UCC filings and had no idea debtor name formatting was this critical. Just started handling secured transactions at my firm and we have several California filings coming up. From what I'm reading, it sounds like the safest approach is to always pull fresh corporate records right before filing anything, even if the original documents are recent. The examples about periods, commas, and entity designations are eye-opening. One question: when you're doing the corporate records search, do you pull from the Secretary of State database directly or use a third-party service? Want to make sure I'm getting the most current and accurate information for name matching. Also curious about the Certana tool several people mentioned - seems like it could be a good safety net for someone still learning the ropes. Thanks for sharing all this practical knowledge!