Connecticut UCC filing name discrepancy causing lender compliance issues
Running into a nightmare situation with a Connecticut UCC filing that's putting our entire loan agreement at risk. We've got a $850K equipment financing deal where the borrower's legal name on their articles of incorporation shows 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' but their UCC-1 filing lists them as 'Advanced Mfg Solutions LLC'. The lender is now questioning whether our security interest is properly perfected since the debtor names don't match exactly. Our legal team is saying this could void the entire secured position if we can't demonstrate proper perfection. Has anyone dealt with Connecticut's Secretary of State office on debtor name discrepancies like this? The equipment involved includes CNC machinery and industrial fabrication tools, so we're talking about substantial collateral value here. Need to know if Connecticut follows the 'seriously misleading' standard or if they're stricter about exact name matches. Time is critical since we're approaching our continuation deadline and can't afford to have an unperfected security interest.
36 comments
Join the conversation
Theodore Nelson
Connecticut definitely follows the seriously misleading test under UCC Article 9. The key question is whether a search under the correct legal name would still locate your filing. 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' vs 'Advanced Mfg Solutions LLC' is pretty close - most search algorithms would catch both variations. Have you actually run a UCC search under both names to see what comes up?
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Haven't done the search test yet but that's a good point. The lender is being extremely cautious because they've been burned before on name mismatches. Will try running searches under both variations to see if our filing appears.
0 coins
AaliyahAli
•This is exactly why I always triple-check the articles of incorporation before submitting any UCC-1. One character difference can create massive headaches down the road.
0 coins
Ellie Simpson
I had a similar issue in Connecticut last year with a debtor name mismatch. The SOS office was actually pretty reasonable about it. If your filing would still be found in a search under the correct name, you're probably okay. But honestly, the safest route might be to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name and eliminate any doubt.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•That's what I'm leaning toward - filing the amendment to clean it up. Did you have any issues with the amendment process in Connecticut? Their online portal seems straightforward but want to make sure there aren't any hidden gotchas.
0 coins
Ellie Simpson
•Connecticut's UCC portal is actually one of the better ones I've used. Just make sure you reference the original filing number correctly and clearly explain the name correction in the amendment description.
0 coins
Arjun Kurti
This kind of situation is exactly why I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload your articles of incorporation and UCC-1 filing as PDFs and it instantly flags any name discrepancies between documents. Would have caught this mismatch before filing and saved you all this stress. The tool cross-checks everything automatically - debtor names, filing numbers, collateral descriptions - and highlights inconsistencies that could cause problems later.
0 coins
Raúl Mora
•Never heard of that service but sounds useful. How accurate is it with catching these kinds of name variations? Some are obvious but others are more subtle.
0 coins
Arjun Kurti
•It's pretty sophisticated - catches abbreviations, punctuation differences, and even common business entity variations. I've been using it for about 6 months and it's prevented several filing issues that would have been costly to fix later.
0 coins
Margot Quinn
•Wish I had known about something like that before. Spent way too much time manually comparing documents and still missed things occasionally.
0 coins
Evelyn Kim
Wait, are you sure about the continuation deadline pressure? UCC-1 filings are good for 5 years from the date of filing. If this is a relatively new filing, you shouldn't be anywhere near needing a continuation yet. Unless this is actually about a UCC-3 continuation you already filed?
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•You're right to question that - I misspoke about the continuation. The pressure is actually from the lender's compliance review which is happening now as part of their annual audit. They want all security interests verified as properly perfected before their next board meeting.
0 coins
Diego Fisher
•Ah that makes more sense. Compliance audits are brutal - they scrutinize everything. Better to file that amendment sooner rather than later to clean up any potential issues.
0 coins
Henrietta Beasley
I've been through this exact scenario multiple times and Connecticut is generally reasonable about the seriously misleading standard. However, given the loan amount you mentioned, I'd absolutely file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name. The cost of the amendment is minimal compared to the risk of having your security interest challenged. Plus it gives your lender the clean documentation they want for their files.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•That's the direction I'm heading. The amendment fee is negligible compared to potentially losing perfection on $850K worth of equipment. Better safe than sorry.
0 coins
Lincoln Ramiro
•Absolutely the right call. I always tell clients that when there's any doubt about debtor name accuracy, file the amendment. Sleep better at night knowing your security interest is bulletproof.
0 coins
Faith Kingston
•Plus if the lender is already raising questions, you know they're going to keep scrutinizing until it's fixed. Get ahead of it and file the correction.
0 coins
Emma Johnson
Just out of curiosity, how did this name discrepancy happen in the first place? Did someone manually type the debtor name instead of copying it directly from the articles? I see this happening a lot when people are rushing through filings.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Honestly not sure exactly how it happened. Could have been a manual entry error or maybe the person filing abbreviated it thinking it would be fine. This is why we need better document verification processes.
0 coins
Liam Brown
•This happens way more often than people realize. I've seen everything from missing commas to completely wrong business entity types. The devil is definitely in the details with UCC filings.
0 coins
Olivia Garcia
•That Certana tool someone mentioned earlier would definitely help prevent these kinds of mistakes. Manual document review is just too error-prone when you're dealing with multiple filings.
0 coins
Noah Lee
Connecticut UCC searches are pretty forgiving in my experience. Run a test search under both name variations and see what you get. If your filing shows up under the correct legal name search, you're probably fine. But like others said, the amendment is cheap insurance for peace of mind.
0 coins
Ava Hernandez
•Good practical advice. Sometimes these things look scarier than they really are until you actually test the search functionality.
0 coins
Isabella Martin
•True, but with lender compliance involved, perception matters as much as legal reality. They want clean, unambiguous documentation.
0 coins
Elijah Jackson
Been filing UCCs in Connecticut for over 15 years and this type of minor name variation rarely causes real problems. The search logic is designed to catch common abbreviations and variations. That said, if your lender is already concerned, just file the amendment and move on. Not worth the ongoing stress and questions.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•That's reassuring to hear from someone with that much experience. Definitely going to file the amendment to put this issue to bed once and for all.
0 coins
Sophia Miller
•15 years of Connecticut filings - wow. I bet you've seen every possible variation of filing problems over the years.
0 coins
Elijah Jackson
•You have no idea. Everything from completely wrong debtor names to filings against the wrong entity entirely. This abbreviation issue is actually pretty minor in comparison.
0 coins
Mason Davis
UPDATE: Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice. I went ahead and filed the UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name to match the articles exactly. Also ran the search test under both names and our original filing did appear under both variations, which was reassuring. The lender is satisfied with the amendment and we're moving forward with the loan. Crisis averted!
0 coins
Mia Rodriguez
•Great outcome! Always good to hear when these situations get resolved smoothly.
0 coins
Jacob Lewis
•Smart move on filing that amendment. Better to have ironclad documentation than leave any room for doubt.
0 coins
Amelia Martinez
•Glad it worked out. This thread has been really helpful for understanding Connecticut's approach to debtor name issues.
0 coins
Ethan Clark
This whole thread reinforces why I've started using automated verification tools for all my UCC work. I tried that Certana service someone mentioned and it's been a game changer. Uploaded a batch of documents last week and it caught three different name inconsistencies that I would have missed. Definitely worth checking out if you're doing regular UCC filings.
0 coins
Mila Walker
•How does the pricing work? Is it per document or some kind of subscription?
0 coins
Ethan Clark
•I don't want to get into specific pricing here, but it's reasonable for the value you get. The peace of mind alone is worth it when you're dealing with large loan amounts.
0 coins
Logan Scott
•Might have to give it a try. Manual document comparison is definitely my least favorite part of the filing process.
0 coins