UCC 1-507 compliance issues with equipment financing - filing rejected twice

We used the name from the original articles of incorporation, but you're right about the amendment. Let me check if the operating agreement change affected the legal name somehow.

This is why I always run the debtor name through multiple variations. The SOS systems are picky about commas, periods, even spacing.

That's probably it! The operating agreement amendment might have included a name change. How long did the corrected filing take to process?

About 3 business days for electronic filing. Make sure you're using the exact name format from their current certificate of good standing.

Wait, operating agreement amendments don't change the legal name - that would require articles of amendment. Are you sure it's a name issue?

Never heard of that tool but sounds useful. Does it catch the kind of subtle differences that cause UCC 1-507 rejections?

Yes, it's designed specifically for UCC document consistency checks. Catches everything from missing commas to extra spaces that human eyes miss but filing systems reject.

The collateral schedule is pretty detailed with model numbers and serial numbers. Would that level of detail cause compliance issues?

Actually, too much detail can sometimes trigger rejections if it looks like you're describing specific goods rather than equipment categories. It's a balancing act.

I disagree - more detail is usually better for equipment financing. The issue is almost certainly the debtor name mismatch.

Tell me about it! I spent three weeks going back and forth with rejections on a simple continuation filing. The system flagged "insufficient information" but wouldn't specify what was missing.

That's why I always file paper backups for important transactions. Takes longer but at least you can call and ask what's wrong.

This is helpful. Should I be concerned about the fixture filing aspect since some of the equipment is installed?

Yes, if the CNC machines are bolted down or integrated into the facility, you might need a separate fixture filing with the real estate records.

Fixture filings are tricky. Sometimes you need both UCC-1 and real estate filing depending on the equipment type.

A comma caused all that trouble? That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about missing.

Yep, one tiny comma difference. The Certana tool caught it immediately when I uploaded both documents for comparison.

Good point. We are a subsidiary of a larger bank that went through a reorganization last year. Let me double-check our secured party name.

Definitely worth checking. Bank mergers and reorganizations create a lot of UCC filing complications.

Should I file with both the SOS and the county recorder just to be safe?

Only if you have true fixtures. Don't dual-file unless necessary - it creates more opportunities for problems and additional fees.

I always dual-file for equipment that could arguably be fixtures. Better safe than sorry with lien priority.

Because then they'd have to actually improve their ancient computer systems. Much easier to make us guess what went wrong.

The worst part is each state has different requirements and systems. What works in one state gets rejected in another.

Glad you got it sorted! This is exactly why I always pull fresh entity records before every UCC filing.

Perfect example of why document verification tools are so valuable. Those small name changes are easy to miss but cause major headaches.

Definitely learned my lesson about staying current with entity changes. Going to implement better procedures to catch these updates.