OnDeck UCC Filing Requirements and Document Verification Issues

Thanks - I did pull the SOS records but there are slight variations even within their own system. The original articles of incorporation show one format, but the current standing certificate shows another.

Use whatever's on the most recent certificate of good standing. That's typically what lenders accept as the authoritative version.

Did you find any shortcuts for the document review process? I'm worried about missing something small that kills the whole deal.

Actually yes - I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool after the second rejection. You just upload your Charter docs and UCC-1 as PDFs and it instantly flags any name mismatches or inconsistencies. Saved me from another round of rejections.

How does that tool work exactly? Does it check against state databases or just compare your documents to each other?

It cross-checks everything - compares debtor names across all your uploaded documents, verifies filing numbers match, catches formatting issues. Really thorough automated review before you submit to the lender.

What about situations where the business operates under a DBA that's different from the legal entity name? OnDeck's guidelines aren't clear on this.

Always use the legal entity name from state records for UCC filings. DBA names go in the additional debtor information section if needed, but the primary debtor name must match state registration exactly.

What's your success rate with first-time UCC approval? I'm batting about 60% which feels low.

Probably 85-90% now, but it took time to learn their quirks. I keep detailed templates for each state since they all have slightly different formatting requirements.

Would you mind sharing what the most common rejection reasons are? I want to avoid the obvious mistakes.

Debtor name mismatches are #1, then collateral descriptions that are too vague, then address formatting inconsistencies. Those three probably account for 80% of rejections I've seen.

That's actually helpful to know. I was expecting same-day turnaround based on their marketing materials.

Their funding is fast once documents are approved, but the compliance review definitely takes time. Worth it though - their rates are competitive.

Because they've all been burned by filings that looked fine but had technical defects. Each lender develops their own defensive procedures.

I guess that makes sense from a risk management perspective but it makes our job so much harder.

Good point. I should check for existing UCC filings under similar business names to see how they're formatted in the state system.

Exactly. The state databases often reveal the 'preferred' formatting for business names that increases approval odds.

I use it for anything over $100K or with complicated entity structures. For simple deals it might be overkill, but the peace of mind is worth it when stakes are high.

I was skeptical at first but it caught a debtor name inconsistency I completely missed between my loan docs and UCC-1. Saved me from an embarrassing rejection with a key client.

That's the kind of mistake that keeps me up at night. Might be worth trying on my next OnDeck deal.

That's a good point. Community banks usually work with you to fix issues, while OnDeck just rejects and makes you start over.

Right - it's a volume business for them, so they need standardized processes. Can't afford to hand-hold every application through document corrections.

Where do I find the current version? I've been using what my processor sent me but it might be outdated.

Check their broker portal under compliance documents. The current version should be dated October 2024 or later.

Found it - there are definitely some changes from what I was using. Thanks for the heads up!