California UCC liens showing conflicting debtor names - will this void my security interest?

California is definitely one of the stricter states on debtor name matching. That comma could potentially be an issue depending on how a court interprets the "seriously misleading" standard. I'd run both versions through the SOS search system to see if they both pull up the same results - if your current filing doesn't show up when searching the exact charter name, that's a red flag.

File the UCC-3 amendment ASAP. Don't even think twice about it. I've seen too many deals go sideways because someone thought "close enough" was good enough on debtor names. California courts have been pretty harsh on this stuff, especially with LLCs where the exact legal entity name matters for piercing corporate veils during collections.

Before you file that amendment, have you actually pulled the official charter documents from the California Secretary of State to confirm the exact name? Sometimes what shows up in casual business searches isn't the precise legal entity name. Also check if there have been any entity name changes since your original filing.

I ran into something similar last year with a debtor name issue on multiple UCC filings. Ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool - you just upload your UCC-1 and the charter documents and it immediately flags any name inconsistencies. Saved me from filing amendments on three different deals where I thought there were problems but the names actually matched according to the search standards. Really helpful for catching these issues before they become expensive mistakes.

ugh california ucc requirements are seriously the worst... had a filing rejected last month because I put "Inc." instead of "Incorporated" even though both versions showed up in their business entity search. The inconsistency in their system vs their filing standards is maddening

Here's what I'd do: pull the charter, compare it character by character to your UCC-1, and if there's ANY difference file the amendment. Don't try to interpret whether it's "material" or not - let the exact match speak for itself. With equipment financing the collateral is usually worth enough to justify being extra cautious.

Just to add another perspective - I've also seen situations where the borrower's legal entity changed after the initial filing but nobody caught it. Make sure Pacific Coast Welding LLC is still the actual operating entity and hasn't merged or restructured since March. That could complicate things even more than a simple name amendment.

Whatever you do, document everything. Keep copies of your search results, the charter, your amendment filing, everything. If this ever goes to litigation you'll want a paper trail showing you acted diligently to perfect your security interest once you discovered the potential issue.

I know everyone's saying file the amendment, but honestly I think you might be overthinking this. A comma difference probably isn't going to void your entire security interest, especially if both names clearly refer to the same entity. California courts aren't completely unreasonable about minor punctuation variations.

Update us when you get this resolved. I'm dealing with a similar name discrepancy issue on a Texas filing and curious how California handles these amendments. Do they process them pretty quickly?