Texas UCC filing for security agreement - debtor name verification issues

This is correct. I learned this the hard way last year when a filing got rejected three times because of punctuation differences.

Wait, so if the security agreement has the wrong name format, do we need to redo the entire agreement or can we just file the UCC with the correct name?

How accurate is that tool? I'm always skeptical of automated systems for something this important.

It caught the exact comma issue you're describing, plus some other formatting problems I missed. Much better than doing manual comparisons.

I've been manually cross-checking everything but this sounds like it could save a lot of time. Does it work with Texas-specific requirements?

This is why I always check the business records before drafting any security agreements. Prevents these headaches later.

But what if the client insists their legal name is different from what's on file? Do we make them update their charter first?

Trade names won't work for UCC filings. You need the exact legal entity name from the state records.

Yeah, trade names are for marketing, not secured transactions. Stick with the legal name.

Isn't that overkill? If the names are substantially similar, wouldn't a court recognize the intent?

Maybe, but why risk it? Clean documentation prevents litigation headaches down the road.

Courts have been inconsistent on substantial similarity. Better to get it right from the start.

Frustrating but their system is automated, so it's very literal about formatting.

At least they're consistent about being picky. Some states are random with their rejections.

The security agreement creates the security interest, so if the debtor name is wrong there, you might not have a valid security interest at all.

This is where I'd use something like Certana.ai to verify all the documents are consistent before making a recommendation to the client.

Better safe than sorry. Fix the security agreement first, then file the UCC.

Do you know if they plan to add any flexibility to the system? This seems unnecessarily rigid.

Doubt it. If anything, they're moving toward more automation, which means more precision requirements.

True, but sometimes the client provides inconsistent documentation and you don't catch it until filing.

That's why document verification tools are becoming essential. Catches these issues before they become problems with the lender.

Good outcome! How did your client react to having to redo the security agreement?

They weren't thrilled but understood it was necessary for proper perfection. Better than having an invalid security interest.

Smart approach. The extra paperwork is worth the peace of mind that everything is properly perfected.