Nevada UCC lien search showing conflicting results - need help verifying debtor matches
Running into a weird situation with a Nevada UCC lien search and hoping someone can point me in the right direction. I'm working on due diligence for a potential equipment acquisition and the Nevada SOS search is returning what looks like the same debtor under slightly different name variations. The target company is 'Rocky Mountain Industrial Solutions LLC' but I'm seeing active UCC-1 filings under 'Rocky Mtn Industrial Solutions LLC' and 'Rocky Mountain Industrial Solutions, LLC' (with the comma). The filing numbers are completely different and the secured parties are different too. One shows a 2019 continuation that should have expired by now, the other shows a 2023 original filing. Both list similar collateral - manufacturing equipment and inventory. I've triple-checked the debtor name spellings and they're exactly as they appear in the Nevada portal. Is this normal for Nevada or am I missing something about how their search algorithm works? The dollar amounts involved are significant enough that I can't afford to miss an existing lien, but I also don't want to kill a deal over filings that might not even apply to my target entity. Has anyone dealt with Nevada's UCC database showing multiple variations like this?
31 comments
Join the conversation
Ava Thompson
Nevada's search system is notorious for this exact issue. The database doesn't automatically consolidate similar entity names like some other states do. You're probably looking at filings against the same company but filed under slightly different name variations over time. The comma difference and 'Mtn' vs 'Mountain' abbreviation are classic examples. I'd recommend pulling the actual UCC-1 documents for both filings to compare addresses, officer names, and specific collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Miguel Ramos
•This is exactly what happened to me last month with a California entity. Different abbreviations in the debtor name field created multiple search results. Turned out to be the same company, just inconsistent name usage across different filings.
0 coins
Zainab Ibrahim
•Wait, if one filing shows a 2019 continuation that should have expired, shouldn't that lien be terminated by now? Nevada requires UCC-3 termination statements, right?
0 coins
StarSailor
You need to be very careful here. Even small differences in debtor names can represent different legal entities, especially with LLCs. The comma in 'Rocky Mountain Industrial Solutions, LLC' might indicate a different entity formation. I'd suggest checking the Nevada Secretary of State business entity database to see if both name variations are registered as separate entities. Also check if there were any name changes, mergers, or reorganizations that might explain the different filings.
0 coins
Connor O'Brien
•Good point about checking the business entity records. Nevada allows multiple entity types with similar names as long as they're distinguishable.
0 coins
Yara Sabbagh
•The 2019 continuation is definitely a red flag. If it wasn't properly renewed, that lien should have lapsed. But you'd need to verify if a UCC-3 continuation was filed within the 6-month window before the 5-year expiration.
0 coins
Keisha Johnson
I ran into something similar recently and ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload the UCC-1 filings as PDFs and it cross-checks all the debtor information, addresses, and collateral descriptions to identify if they're actually the same entity. It caught discrepancies I would have missed doing manual comparison. Really helped clarify whether we were dealing with one entity or multiple related companies.
0 coins
Paolo Rizzo
•How accurate is that tool with name variations like the OP is describing? Does it flag potential matches even with abbreviation differences?
0 coins
Keisha Johnson
•Yes, it's designed to catch exactly these kinds of variations. It analyzes the documents for matching addresses, officer names, collateral types, and flags potential entity matches even when the names aren't identical. Saved me from missing a critical lien on a deal.
0 coins
QuantumQuest
Nevada's UCC search is frustrating because it requires exact matches. You might be missing other variations too. Try searching with just 'Rocky Mountain Industrial' or 'Rocky Mtn' to see if there are additional filings. Also search by the secured party name if you can identify who the lenders are. Sometimes that reveals filings you miss with debtor name searches.
0 coins
Amina Sy
•This is why I always do multiple search variations. Nevada doesn't have the fuzzy search logic that other states use.
0 coins
Oliver Fischer
•The secured party search is brilliant advice. I've found liens that way that never showed up in debtor searches due to name entry errors.
0 coins
Natasha Petrova
For the 2019 filing with continuation, you need to verify the continuation was filed properly and on time. Nevada requires UCC-3 continuation statements to be filed within 6 months before the 5-year anniversary of the original filing date. If the original was filed in 2014, the continuation should have been filed between late 2018 and early 2019. Check the filing dates carefully and see if there's a UCC-3 continuation record.
0 coins
Javier Morales
•If the continuation was late or not filed at all, that lien would have lapsed and become ineffective. But the secured party could still file a new UCC-1 if they caught the mistake.
0 coins
Emma Davis
•Nevada's portal sometimes shows expired filings in search results even after they've lapsed. You have to look at the status and effective dates carefully.
0 coins
GalaxyGlider
I deal with Nevada UCC searches regularly and this is unfortunately common. The state's database doesn't standardize entity names, so 'LLC' vs 'L.L.C.' vs ', LLC' all create separate search results. My recommendation is to pull full copies of both UCC-1 filings and compare the mailing addresses, organizational IDs if listed, and detailed collateral descriptions. If they match, you're probably dealing with the same entity.
0 coins
Malik Robinson
•Do you know if Nevada includes the entity ID numbers in their UCC filings? That would make identification much easier.
0 coins
GalaxyGlider
•Not consistently. Some filers include the Nevada entity number in the debtor information fields, but it's not required. That's why address and collateral comparison is usually the most reliable method.
0 coins
Isabella Silva
ugh, Nevada's system is the worst for this. I spent hours last week trying to figure out if three different name variations were the same company. Turns out they were all the same entity, just filed by different law firms over the years who used slightly different name formats. The addresses and collateral descriptions were identical once I pulled the actual documents.
0 coins
Ravi Choudhury
•Different law firms definitely explains the inconsistency. Each firm probably has their own standard format for entity names.
0 coins
Freya Andersen
•This is why I always include the full legal entity name exactly as it appears on the articles of incorporation when I file UCC-1s. Prevents this confusion.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
One more thing to check - look at the collateral descriptions in both filings. If they're covering the same specific equipment or inventory categories, that's a strong indicator you're dealing with the same company. Different secured parties might have different collateral interests in the same debtor, which would explain separate filings under slight name variations.
0 coins
CosmicCadet
•Good point. A company could have equipment financing from one lender and inventory financing from another, both requiring separate UCC-1 filings.
0 coins
Chloe Harris
•The collateral descriptions would help identify if there's overlap or if they're truly separate security interests.
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
I actually just went through something similar and ended up using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded both UCC-1 PDFs and it flagged them as likely the same entity based on matching addresses and similar collateral. Turned out the company had filed under different name variations over time, but it was definitely the same business. The automated comparison caught details I would have overlooked.
0 coins
Anastasia Popova
•That's really helpful. How long did the analysis take? I'm dealing with a tight due diligence timeline.
0 coins
Diego Mendoza
•Pretty much instant once the PDFs uploaded. The system immediately highlighted the matching elements and flagged the potential duplicate entity issue.
0 coins
Sean Flanagan
Thanks everyone for the input. I pulled the full UCC-1 documents and you were right - same mailing address, same business description, and nearly identical collateral schedules. The 2019 continuation filing shows it was properly renewed within the required timeframe, so that lien is still active. The 2023 filing appears to be from a different secured party for additional equipment financing. Both are legitimate liens against the same entity, just under slightly different name variations. Really appreciate the guidance on Nevada's search quirks.
0 coins
Zara Shah
•Glad you got it sorted out. Nevada really needs to upgrade their search system to handle name variations better.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•At least now you have a complete picture of the existing liens. That's crucial for your due diligence.
0 coins
Luca Ferrari
•Good catch on verifying the continuation filing was timely. That's a detail that could have caused problems later if you'd missed it.
0 coins