UCC-1 lien search Texas showing inconsistent debtor names - how to verify filing accuracy?
Running into a frustrating situation with a UCC-1 lien search in Texas and hoping someone can help. I'm working on due diligence for a equipment financing deal and the SOS search results are showing what appears to be the same company but with slightly different debtor names across multiple filings. One shows 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' and another shows 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (notice the comma difference). There's also a third filing with 'ABC Mfg LLC'. All have the same address but I'm concerned about whether these are actually perfected liens against the same entity or if there are name discrepancies that could affect lien priority. The collateral descriptions also vary - some say 'equipment' while others are more specific about machinery types. Is this normal variation or should I be worried about filing accuracy? How do you typically handle debtor name matching when doing UCC searches in Texas? The closing is next week and I need to determine if these liens are properly perfected or if there are gaps that could impact our security position.
32 comments
Join the conversation
Jamal Washington
Texas SOS search can be tricky with debtor names. The key is whether the variations would be 'seriously misleading' under UCC Article 9. Small differences like the comma in LLC shouldn't invalidate the filing, but 'ABC Mfg LLC' vs 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' could be more problematic depending on how a reasonable searcher would interpret it. You'll want to check the exact legal name on the company's articles of incorporation.
0 coins
Mei Wong
•This is exactly what happened to us last month. Had similar name variations and it turned into a nightmare during closing.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•The 'seriously misleading' standard is key but it's not always clear cut. We usually err on the side of caution and assume all variations need to be considered unless we can definitively prove they're the same entity.
0 coins
PixelWarrior
I've been dealing with this exact issue lately. What saved me was using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload the UCC search results along with the company's charter documents and it instantly cross-checks whether the debtor names would be considered matching under UCC standards. Really helped me sort out which filings were actually against our borrower versus similarly named entities.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•That sounds helpful - how accurate is it with the name matching logic? Does it handle abbreviations and punctuation differences?
0 coins
PixelWarrior
•Pretty solid from what I've seen. It flagged potential issues with abbreviations that I wouldn't have caught manually. Worth trying for complex searches like yours.
0 coins
Amara Adebayo
For Texas specifically, you should also check if there are any DBAs or assumed names filed with the county. Sometimes companies file UCCs under their DBA which can create this exact confusion. The Texas SOS business search might show additional name variations that are legally valid.
0 coins
Giovanni Rossi
•Good point about DBAs. We missed one once because the UCC was filed under an assumed name that wasn't in our initial search.
0 coins
Jamal Washington
•Texas does require DBAs to be filed at county level which makes it harder to search comprehensively. Always worth checking the main counties where the business operates.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Mansour
This is why I hate equipment deals!!! The debtor name issues drive me crazy. Last time I had something like this the title company wanted additional documentation to prove all the filings were against the same entity. Ended up delaying closing by 3 days while we sorted it out.
0 coins
Dylan Evans
•Feel your pain. We've started requiring borrowers to provide certified copies of all their legal names and DBAs upfront just to avoid this.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Mansour
•That's smart. Wish we had thought of that earlier. Now every deal feels like a potential landmine with name variations.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
The collateral description differences you mentioned are also worth examining. If one filing says 'equipment' and another says 'manufacturing machinery and tools' they could have different coverage even if the debtor name issues get resolved. More specific descriptions generally provide better protection.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•Right, I was wondering about that too. Some of the filings just say 'equipment' which seems pretty broad.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Broad descriptions can work but they're riskier if there's ever a dispute about what's covered. The 'equipment' filing might not cover inventory or accounts receivable that could be valuable collateral.
0 coins
Mei Wong
•We always try to be as specific as possible in our collateral descriptions. Better to over-describe than under-describe and miss something important.
0 coins
Sofia Gomez
Have you tried calling the Texas SOS filing office directly? Sometimes they can provide guidance on whether name variations would be considered the same entity for search purposes. They deal with this question a lot.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•I hadn't thought of that. Do they actually give advice on specific searches or just general guidance?
0 coins
Sofia Gomez
•They'll usually give general guidance about their search logic but won't make legal determinations about specific cases. Still worth a try though.
0 coins
StormChaser
One thing that might help is looking at the filing dates and seeing if there's a pattern. Sometimes companies file amendments or corrections that create these name variations. If the filings are close in time it might indicate they're correcting earlier mistakes.
0 coins
Jamal Washington
•Good observation. Amendments and continuations sometimes introduce name variations when filers aren't careful about consistency.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•Looking at the dates now - there are filings from 2019, 2022, and 2024. The name variations don't seem to follow any particular pattern based on timing.
0 coins
Dmitry Petrov
ran into similar thing couple months ago, ended up having to get legal opinion letter about the name matching issue because lender wouldn't close without it. expensive but covered everyone
0 coins
Dylan Evans
•How much did the legal opinion cost? We're trying to figure out if it's worth it or if we should just require additional UCC filings.
0 coins
Dmitry Petrov
•was like 2500 but saved the deal. probably cheaper than redoing all the filings
0 coins
PixelWarrior
Update on the Certana.ai suggestion - I actually used it for a similar Texas search last week and it caught a debtor name issue that would have been a problem. The tool compared our borrower's certificate of formation against the UCC search results and flagged that one of the liens was actually against a different LLC with a similar name. Saved us from a potential title issue.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•That's exactly what I'm worried about. Going to try uploading our documents to see what it finds.
0 coins
Ava Williams
•Interesting. We usually do manual comparison but automated checking might be more reliable for catching subtle differences.
0 coins
Miguel Castro
The practical reality is that you'll probably need to treat all these filings as potentially valid liens unless you can definitively prove otherwise. Better to be conservative in your title analysis than to discover a problem after closing. Consider whether your borrower can provide UCC-3 termination statements for any filings that are supposed to be released.
0 coins
Zoe Papadopoulos
•That's what I'm leaning toward. Better safe than sorry, even if it means more documentation work.
0 coins
Miguel Castro
•Exactly. Title issues discovered post-closing are much more expensive to fix than being thorough upfront.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Agreed. We always assume liens are valid unless proven otherwise. The cost of being wrong is too high.
0 coins