Colorado UCC filing - security agreement form inconsistencies causing rejections

This is absolutely correct. I've seen lenders lose their security interest because of a missing comma in the debtor name. Colorado's system is automated and has zero tolerance for variations.

Wait so does this mean if I filed a UCC-1 with 'ABC Company Inc' but the security agreement says 'ABC Company, Inc.' that my lien isn't valid?? This is terrifying

Not necessarily invalid, but it creates a serious risk. You'd need to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name ASAP. Better safe than sorry when it comes to perfection.

Never heard of Certana but honestly at this point I'll try anything. How accurate is it with catching these tiny differences?

It caught a debtor name that had 'Corp.' in one document and 'Corporation' in another - stuff that's easy to miss when you're reviewing dozens of filings. Definitely worth checking out if you're worried about document consistency.

I feel your pain. The inconsistency is maddening - sometimes they accept filings with minor variations, sometimes they don't. There's no clear guidance on their website either.

Have you tried calling them? Sometimes they can explain exactly what's wrong with your filing format.

Called them 6 times. Each person gives different advice. One said commas don't matter, another said they're critical. It's like playing roulette with your security interests.

Good point about the searches. Should I search under both name variations to see which ones come up?

Yes, search under every possible name variation. If a filing doesn't come up under the name a third party would reasonably search, your security interest might not be perfected against that searcher.

This is why I always do test searches before finalizing any UCC filing. Better to catch problems early than discover them during a bankruptcy proceeding.

That's a smart approach. Better to over-file than under-protect your collateral position.

Wait, can you actually file UCC-1s for the same debtor under different name variations? I thought that would cause problems.

You can, but it's not ideal. Better to get the name right the first time. If you have multiple filings for the same debtor, make sure your continuation and termination strategy accounts for all of them.

Does it work with handwritten security agreements or only typed ones?

Works with any PDF - even scanned handwritten documents. The OCR is pretty good at picking up text variations.

Good catch. I've seen security agreements that reference both the LLC and the individual members as debtors. You need separate UCC-1s for each different legal entity.

Also make sure you're not using a trade name or DBA when you should be using the registered legal name. That's an automatic rejection.

That's a solid process. I might add: check for any recent amendments to the Articles that might have changed the name format.

This checklist approach makes sense. I think our problem is we've been too casual about the exact formatting requirements.

That's encouraging. Did you have to pay additional fees for the amendment after the rejection?

Yes, had to pay the full amendment fee even though the rejection was due to their unclear requirements. Frustrating but cheaper than losing the security interest.

At least Colorado allows amendments. Some states make you start completely over with a new filing date if there are material errors.

That sounds comprehensive. Does it handle multi-state filings where you need to check different Secretary of State databases?

The tool focuses on document consistency rather than database searches, but it definitely helps ensure your UCC filing matches whatever formation documents you upload. Super helpful for catching those tiny formatting differences that cause rejections.

Will definitely post an update once I get through all these amendments. Thanks everyone for the advice - feeling much more confident about fixing this mess now.

Good luck! These name matching requirements are getting stricter everywhere, so your experience will help a lot of us.