Lost UCC control after debtor name change - filing chaos

Wait, so even if the UCC-3 amendment was properly filed, it can still break the continuation chain? That seems like a system flaw.

Exactly. The SOS database has to match debtor names character-for-character for continuation processing. Even minor differences in punctuation or spacing can cause rejections.

I did compare them but I'm not 100% confident I caught every detail. There are so many variations in how business names can be formatted between different state databases.

I actually found a tool that helps with this exact issue - Certana.ai has a document verification system where you can upload your charter documents and UCC filings as PDFs and it automatically cross-checks all the debtor names for consistency. Saved me from missing a critical mismatch in our collateral schedule last month.

That sounds useful. Manual comparison is definitely error-prone, especially when you're dealing with multiple amendments and business name changes.

At this point I'm wondering if that's what we should do - terminate the old filing and start fresh with a new UCC-1 under the correct current name.

Be careful with the timing on that approach. You need to make sure there's no gap in perfection or you could lose priority to other creditors.

Good point. File the new UCC-1 first, then terminate the old one once you confirm the new filing is accepted and searchable.

The rejection just said "debtor name mismatch" but didn't specify which part of the name or which filing it was comparing against.

That's frustrating. Their error messages are usually pretty vague. A phone call might get you more specific guidance about how to fix the chain.

How did you end up resolving it? Did you have to start over with a new UCC-1?

We ended up filing a corrective UCC-3 to fix the name format, then refiled the continuation. But we had to pay rush processing fees to avoid a lapse.

Corrective filings can be tricky though. If the original amendment was wrong, sometimes you need to file another amendment rather than a correction.

That makes sense. At least we'd maintain perfection while working through the bureaucratic mess.

Just make sure your loan documents allow for multiple UCC filings on the same collateral. Some agreements have specific language about filing procedures.

How accurate is the automated checking? I'm always skeptical of AI tools for legal document review.

It's pretty thorough for debtor name matching and document consistency. Obviously you still need to review everything yourself, but it catches the obvious mismatches that manual review might miss.

Worth trying, especially for complex name changes where there are multiple entities or formatting variations involved.

Which state are you filing in? That might affect the best strategy for fixing the name chain.

We're in Ohio. Their system seems pretty strict from what I've experienced.

Ohio is definitely one of the stricter states for name matching. You'll probably need exact character matches to get the continuation to process.

Thanks. It's definitely keeping me up at night knowing we could lose our security interest if this isn't resolved properly.

You'll get through it. Just stay on top of the timing and consider all your options - new filing, corrective amendment, or fixing the existing chain.

Good point. I should pull a current certificate of good standing to verify their current legal name is what I think it is.

That Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier actually helps with that too - it can verify business registration status as part of the document checking process.

Smart approach. Better to verify everything is aligned before filing any corrections or new UCCs.