D&B UCC filings showing incorrect debtor info - how to fix before continuation deadline?

That's somewhat reassuring, but I'm still concerned about the continuation filings. If a potential buyer is relying on D&B data and sees discrepancies, won't that raise red flags during their UCC search process?

I've seen deals get held up because of exactly this kind of thing. Lawyers get nervous when the D&B report doesn't match the actual UCC records, even if it's just formatting differences.

Did you have any issues when lenders were doing their due diligence? I'm worried about having to explain these discrepancies to every potential buyer or refinancing partner.

Yeah, we ended up having to provide copies of the actual state filings alongside our D&B reports. It was annoying but not a deal killer. Most experienced commercial lenders understand that D&B formatting can be quirky.

This is why I always recommend keeping certified copies of your original UCC-1 filings. D&B is useful for quick searches but you can't rely on their formatting for legal accuracy.

That sounds really helpful! Does it also flag potential issues with collateral descriptions or just debtor names?

It checks everything - debtor names, filing numbers, collateral schedules, the works. Really takes the guesswork out of making sure your continuation filing will be accepted.

How does that help with the D&B reporting issue though? That tool sounds good for filing accuracy but doesn't fix what D&B shows to third parties.

Right? It's so frustrating because you know someone's going to question it during due diligence and you'll have to spend time explaining why the names don't match.

I feel your pain. Had a deal almost fall apart because D&B showed our debtor name completely wrong and the buyer's attorney freaked out thinking we had filed against the wrong entity.

Good point. I should probably download copies of all our original filings before preparing the continuations. Better safe than sorry.

Definitely do that. I've seen continuations get rejected because someone relied on a third-party database instead of checking the actual state records.

This is basic UCC practice - always verify against the original filing, not secondary sources like D&B. Their data is useful for initial searches but shouldn't be your source of truth for legal filings.

I hadn't thought of that. Do they actually respond to correction requests or is it one of those black hole customer service situations?

Hit or miss in my experience. They're more responsive if you're a paying subscriber, but even then it can take weeks to get corrections made.

State searches are definitely more accurate but D&B is faster and covers multiple states in one report. There's always going to be a trade-off between convenience and accuracy.

True, but when you're dealing with secured transactions worth millions of dollars, shouldn't accuracy be the priority? I'd rather wait an extra day for reliable information.

Most lenders I work with use D&B for initial screening but always verify with state records before closing. It's the best of both worlds.

Did it help identify any issues you wouldn't have caught otherwise?

Yeah, it flagged a small difference in how we had formatted the debtor's state of incorporation. Nothing major but could have caused the filing to be rejected.

Good question. It seems worse in states like Delaware and Nevada where we have a lot of filings. The formatting is more consistent in states like Texas and California.

That makes sense. Delaware's UCC database has known formatting limitations that affect third-party data aggregators like D&B.

That's reassuring. I guess I was overthinking the potential impact on our security interests.

You're not overthinking it - due diligence issues are real. But as long as your underlying filings are solid, the D&B formatting problems are more of an annoyance than a legal risk.