Illinois UCC lien search showing confusing results - need help interpreting

Good point about addresses. Also worth checking if there were any amendments or name changes filed that might connect these filings.

The addresses are identical on both filings, same street address and zip code. That makes me think it's the same company but filed incorrectly on one of them.

That's what I was afraid of. So if the UCC-1 has the wrong legal name, it might not be legally effective to perfect the lien?

Exactly. UCC Article 9 requires the debtor name to match the organizational documents exactly. Small variations can void the perfection.

This is where I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload the UCC filings and the company's formation documents and it instantly flags name discrepancies. Saved me from a similar headache last month.

I did search by filing number and that's how I confirmed these are definitely two separate filings. No amendments connecting them either.

Two separate filings with same address but different names sounds like someone messed up the debtor name on one of them. I'd contact both secured parties to clarify.

The wildcard approach helps but you still need to verify which filings are actually valid. Name matching rules are strict for a reason.

True, but at least you see all the potential issues upfront instead of missing something critical.

Good idea, I'll pull those documents. Should I also check for any name change filings or amendments to the LLC registration?

Definitely. Sometimes companies file name changes and don't update their UCC filings properly, which creates this exact confusion.

I had a similar situation where Certana.ai caught that the UCC-1 was filed under the old company name even though they'd filed a name change months earlier. Their system cross-checks all the documents automatically.

Both secured parties appear to be real equipment financing companies. One is a major national lender, the other is more regional but checks out online.

That suggests these are legitimate filings, just potentially on the same entity with name errors. The national lender probably has better compliance so their filing might be more accurate.

Good catch. The 2022 filing still has about 6 months before it needs continuation, so it's still active for now.

Six months goes by fast in equipment financing. I'd note that in your due diligence timeline.

This is another area where automated monitoring helps. Some tools track continuation deadlines automatically so you don't miss important changes.

The equipment I'm looking at would definitely fall under both descriptions, so I need to assume both liens could apply regardless of the name issues.

Smart approach. Better to be conservative in your lien analysis than get surprised later.

That's probably my next step. I was hoping to verify independently first, but direct contact might be the fastest way to get clarity.

Just make sure you get any clarification in writing. Verbal explanations don't help much if there are problems later.

Agreed on getting it in writing. When I had a similar name matching issue, I used Certana.ai to generate a clean report showing the discrepancies before approaching the company. Made the conversation much more productive.

Exactly right. The stakes are too high in equipment financing to make assumptions about filing accuracy.

Thanks everyone for the input. Sounds like I need to pull the formation documents, contact both secured parties, and get written clarification from the company before proceeding. Better safe than sorry.

That's the right approach. Document everything and you'll be covered regardless of which filing is actually correct.