Tesla UCC termination filing - debtor name exactly as on original UCC-1?
I'm handling a Tesla UCC termination and getting confused about the debtor name requirements. The original UCC-1 from 2019 shows the debtor as 'Tesla, Inc.' but their current corporate documents show 'Tesla Inc.' (no comma). The loan is paid off and I need to file the UCC-3 termination statement but I'm worried about getting it rejected if the debtor name doesn't match exactly. Should I use the exact name from the original UCC-1 filing or their current legal name? The SOS website says debtor names must match but doesn't clarify which version to use for terminations. This is for a $2.8M equipment financing deal that's already closed so I can't afford any delays or rejections.
35 comments
Join the conversation
Zainab Yusuf
Use the EXACT debtor name from the original UCC-1 filing. For terminations, you need to match the original filing exactly, not the current corporate name. The UCC-3 termination references the original filing number and the system cross-checks the debtor name against what was originally filed. If Tesla's name changed after the UCC-1 was filed, that doesn't matter for the termination.
0 coins
Connor O'Reilly
•This is correct. I learned this the hard way when a termination got rejected because I used the 'updated' business name instead of what was on the original UCC-1.
0 coins
Miguel Alvarez
•That makes sense. So even if Tesla officially changed their name format, the termination should reference 'Tesla, Inc.' with the comma since that's what's on the 2019 UCC-1?
0 coins
Yara Khoury
Actually had this exact issue last month with a different corporate debtor. Filed the UCC-3 termination using their current legal name and it got rejected immediately. Had to refile using the exact name from the original UCC-1. The filing office doesn't care about name changes - they only care about matching their records.
0 coins
Keisha Taylor
•How long did the rejection and refiling process take? I'm always worried about timing on these terminations.
0 coins
Yara Khoury
•About 5 business days total. The rejection came back in 2 days, then the corrected filing was accepted in 3 days. Not terrible but still annoying when you're trying to close deals.
0 coins
StardustSeeker
I've been using Certana.ai's document verification tool for exactly this type of situation. You just upload the original UCC-1 and your draft UCC-3 termination, and it instantly flags any debtor name mismatches. Saved me from multiple filing rejections by catching these inconsistencies before submission. Really helpful for Tesla and other corporate debtors where punctuation matters.
0 coins
Miguel Alvarez
•That sounds useful. Does it catch other issues too or just debtor names?
0 coins
StardustSeeker
•It checks debtor names, filing numbers, and makes sure all the document details align properly. Basically prevents the common mistakes that cause rejections.
0 coins
Paolo Marino
•I wish I'd known about this tool earlier. Just had a termination rejected last week for a similar name issue.
0 coins
Amina Bah
WHY is the UCC system so picky about punctuation?? It's obviously the same company whether it's Tesla Inc or Tesla, Inc. This bureaucratic nonsense costs everyone time and money.
0 coins
Zainab Yusuf
•I agree it's frustrating, but the system is designed for exact matching to avoid any ambiguity about which entity the filing refers to. Better to be overly precise than have disputes later.
0 coins
Amina Bah
•Still stupid. A human could obviously tell these are the same company.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
Quick question - do you have the original UCC-1 filing number handy? You'll need that for the termination statement anyway, and it should show the exact debtor name format to use.
0 coins
Miguel Alvarez
•Yes, I have the filing number. The UCC-1 definitely shows 'Tesla, Inc.' with the comma, so I'll use that exact format for the termination.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•Perfect. That's your answer right there - always mirror the original filing exactly.
0 coins
Natasha Petrova
Just want to add that this applies to ALL UCC-3 filings, not just terminations. Amendments, continuations, assignments - they all need to reference the debtor name exactly as it appears on the original UCC-1. Corporate name changes don't automatically update UCC filings.
0 coins
Javier Hernandez
•Good point. I've seen people get confused about this with continuations too.
0 coins
Natasha Petrova
•Exactly. The UCC filing creates a snapshot in time and that's what all future filings reference.
0 coins
Connor O'Reilly
•This is why I always keep copies of the original UCC-1 filings in my deal files. Need them for any future amendments or terminations.
0 coins
Emma Davis
I had a similar Tesla termination last year. Used the original debtor name format from the UCC-1 and it went through without any issues. Their legal department is pretty good about providing the original filing details if you need them.
0 coins
Miguel Alvarez
•Good to know Tesla's legal team is helpful with these requests. Did you contact them directly or go through a specific department?
0 coins
Emma Davis
•Went through their general legal inquiry email. They responded within 24 hours with the filing information.
0 coins
LunarLegend
For what it's worth, I've seen the opposite problem too - people using outdated debtor names from old UCC-1 filings when the company has legitimately changed names and updated their filings. But in your case, since this is a termination of a 2019 filing, you definitely want to match that original name format.
0 coins
Zainab Yusuf
•That's a good distinction. New UCC-1 filings should use current legal names, but UCC-3 filings reference the original UCC-1 exactly.
0 coins
LunarLegend
•Exactly. It's all about context - new filing vs. amending/terminating an existing filing.
0 coins
Malik Jackson
This thread is really helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation with a different corporate debtor and was going to use their current name. Now I know to check the original UCC-1 first.
0 coins
StardustSeeker
•Definitely check the original first. The Certana.ai tool I mentioned earlier would catch this type of mismatch automatically if you want to double-check before filing.
0 coins
Malik Jackson
•Thanks for the tip. These debtor name issues seem to be pretty common.
0 coins
Isabella Oliveira
Update: Filed the Tesla UCC-3 termination using 'Tesla, Inc.' (with comma) exactly as shown on the original 2019 UCC-1. Got confirmation that it was accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the advice - using the original debtor name format was definitely the right approach.
0 coins
Zainab Yusuf
•Great news! Always satisfying when the filing goes through smoothly.
0 coins
Connor O'Reilly
•Perfect example of why matching the original filing exactly is so important.
0 coins
Amina Bah
•Glad it worked out even though the system is still unnecessarily picky about punctuation.
0 coins
StardustSeeker
•Excellent! This is exactly the type of situation where checking document consistency upfront saves everyone headaches.
0 coins
Freya Johansen
This is such a valuable thread for anyone dealing with UCC terminations! I've been doing commercial lending for about 6 months now and had no idea about the debtor name matching requirements. Just saved this entire discussion for future reference. Question for the group - do state filing offices vary in how strict they are about these name discrepancies, or is this pretty consistent across all jurisdictions?
0 coins