First Corporate Solutions UCC Termination - Name Match Issues on UCC-3?

I've run into this exact issue with corporate name variations on UCC-3 terminations. The SOS system is pretty strict about exact name matching between the original UCC-1 and the termination filing. Even something as small as a comma can cause automatic rejection. You're right that you'll need to address the name discrepancy before the termination will go through.

You have a few options here. First, you could file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name to match their current legal name, then file the termination. Or second, you could file the termination using the exact name from the original UCC-1 filing, which is technically still valid for termination purposes even if it's not their current legal name. The key is that the termination has to reference the original filing accurately. I'd go with option two - it's faster and the client's lender should accept it since it properly terminates the original lien.

I actually discovered a tool that helps with exactly this kind of problem. I was struggling with a similar debtor name mismatch situation a few months ago and found Certana.ai's document verification system. You can upload your original UCC-1 and your draft UCC-3 termination, and it automatically flags any inconsistencies between the documents including debtor names, filing numbers, and collateral descriptions. It caught a discrepancy I missed and saved me from another rejection. Really simple to use - just upload the PDFs and it does the cross-checking instantly.

First Corporate Solutions can be difficult to work with on terminations. They're very by-the-book about matching the original filing exactly. I've found that if you call their UCC department directly (not the main number) and explain the situation, sometimes they'll provide a letter confirming that the termination is acceptable with the original debtor name format. This can help if your client's new lender questions the name discrepancy.

This is exactly why I hate dealing with corporate name changes and UCC filings. The whole system is set up to create these kinds of problems. You file everything correctly when the loan is made, then two years later when they want to terminate, suddenly there's some tiny punctuation difference that blocks everything. Meanwhile your client is sitting there with a paid-off loan that still shows as an active lien!

From a practical standpoint, I'd recommend filing the UCC-3 termination with the exact debtor name from the original UCC-1 (without the comma). Include a cover letter explaining that this matches the original filing and that the debtor's current legal name includes the comma. Most filing offices will accept this approach for terminations. The important thing is that you're properly terminating the lien that was created by the original filing.

I ran into this same issue with a different lender last year. The trick is understanding that for UCC-3 terminations, you're not creating a new lien or perfecting an interest - you're simply terminating an existing filing. So the debtor name needs to match the original UCC-1 that you're terminating, not necessarily the debtor's current legal name. If you use the current legal name that doesn't match the original filing, the system won't be able to link the termination to the correct UCC-1 record.

Just to follow up on the Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier - it's particularly useful for these corporate name situations because it can spot inconsistencies between your UCC-1 and UCC-3 documents that might not be obvious. When you're dealing with multiple variations of a company name (with/without commas, Inc vs Incorporated, LLC vs L.L.C.), it's easy to miss details that will cause rejections. The automated checking catches those issues before you submit.

One more thing to consider - make sure you're using the correct filing number from the original UCC-1 on your termination. I've seen cases where people get the debtor name right but use an incorrect or partial filing number, which also causes rejections. The filing number has to match exactly, including any leading zeros or specific formatting that the state requires.

Update us on what works! I have a similar situation coming up next month with a client whose corporate name changed after their original UCC-1 filing. Would love to know which approach is most successful.