How to verify UCC filings - need to double-check everything before lapse

This is solid advice. I'd add that you should also check if the debtor has changed their legal name since filing - corporate name changes are super common and can invalidate your perfection if not caught.

Ugh yes the manual verification is the worst part. Takes forever and you're always second-guessing yourself on whether names match exactly enough.

Wait, that sounds too good to be true. How accurate is the automated matching? I'm always skeptical of these tools when it comes to legal name variations.

I was skeptical too but it's actually really thorough. It flags even minor discrepancies like 'Inc.' vs 'Incorporated' or missing commas. Better safe than sorry when you're dealing with perfection issues.

Honestly anything that can catch those tiny name differences is worth it. I've seen security interests get challenged over a missing comma in a corporate name.

Good point - I'm trying to verify against both. Making sure the UCC matches the security agreement AND that both still accurately reflect the current debtor/collateral situation.

This is why I always keep a verification checklist. Original security agreement → UCC-1 → current corporate status → collateral still exists/owned by debtor. Every step has to align.

Ouch, that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. How far ahead of the deadline do you usually start this process?

I start at least 6 months out, sometimes earlier if it's a complex portfolio. Gives you time to fix any issues you find.

Yes! And some states update their corporate databases way faster than others. Delaware is usually pretty current but some states lag by weeks or months.

Pro tip: if you're dealing with multi-state filings, each state's SOS database works differently. Some require exact name matches for searches, others are more forgiving.

Spreadsheets work okay for small portfolios but once you get above 50-100 filings it becomes a mess. You need something that can handle document comparison automatically.

I tried building a database but honestly the time investment wasn't worth it. Now I just use Certana.ai for the document verification part and keep a simple tracking sheet for deadlines.

That makes sense. I think I'm overcomplicating the tracking part when the real issue is just making sure the documents match up correctly.

Good reminder. A couple of these debtors are Delaware corps but operating in other states. Need to make sure I'm still filing in the right place.

Delaware corps are easy - always file in Delaware regardless of where they operate. But LLCs and other entities can be trickier.

This is huge. I've seen cases where a manufacturing company switched to services and suddenly half their original collateral description was useless.

Yeah, and if you're doing 'all assets' filings you're usually okay, but specific collateral descriptions can become outdated fast.

That's why I love broad collateral descriptions when possible. Less to verify and less likely to become irrelevant over time.

That's exactly what I'm worried about. How many amendments did you end up having to file?

About 8 out of 150 filings needed amendments. Mostly debtor name issues where the entity had changed names or merged with another company.

That's a solid workflow. The automated step probably catches 90% of the issues and then you just focus your manual review on the edge cases.

Exactly. And having that third step of checking corporate records is crucial - you'd be surprised how many entities change status or merge without anyone noticing.

From my experience, the ROI on automated verification tools is pretty clear cut. We calculated that each manual UCC verification was taking our associates about 45-60 minutes per filing (including document retrieval, comparison, and documentation). At billable rates, that's expensive labor for what's essentially a compliance check. With 75 filings, you're looking at 60+ hours of associate time. The automated tools can process that volume in a fraction of the time and catch inconsistencies human reviewers might miss when they're fatigued. Plus, the risk mitigation from catching perfection issues early is worth way more than the tool cost.