UCC 2022 amendments causing confusion with debtor name requirements?

This is exactly what I was hoping to hear! So we're grandfathered in on the old filings as long as we don't touch them?

Correct - existing filings remain valid under the rules that were in place when they were filed. But any new activity triggers current compliance requirements.

You might be thinking of the fixture filing changes, which did have a transition period. The debtor name amendments didn't include a mandatory update requirement for existing filings.

Ah okay, I was definitely confusing the two. Thanks for clarifying!

That sounds incredibly useful! How accurate is it at catching the subtle name variations that trip up the filing systems?

It's been spot-on in my experience. Caught several cases where we had 'Inc.' vs 'Incorporated' mismatches that would have caused rejection headaches down the road.

I've heard good things about that tool. Does it work with bulk uploads or do you have to do them one at a time?

Which states gave you trouble? Some have been more aggressive in enforcement than others.

Ohio and Michigan were the worst. Pennsylvania was actually pretty reasonable about it.

Continuations are treated the same as amendments under the new rules. If your original debtor names don't meet current standards, you'll need to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct the name before or with your continuation.

That's what I was afraid of. Looks like I've got some work ahead of me.

Definitely worth running those through a verification tool before you start filing. Could save you a lot of rejection hassles.

15% seems high! Were these mostly older filings or spread across different time periods?

Mostly 2018-2020 filings. The older ones had more issues because our naming conventions were less standardized back then.

The multiple debtor rules haven't changed much, but the name accuracy requirements apply to each debtor individually. So if you have three debtors on a UCC-1, all three names need to meet the current standards.

That makes sense. I was worried there might be some interaction between the names that I was missing.

YES! It's so frustrating. You end up having to call their help desk and half the time they don't know the new rules either.

The UCC filing guide updates have been slow to roll out. I usually check the actual statute text rather than relying on the SOS summaries.

What did they end up recommending? Full portfolio review or just prospective compliance?

They recommended a risk-based approach - full review of our largest exposures and spot-checking the rest. Made sense from a cost-benefit perspective.

Fixture filings did get some updates in the amendments, particularly around the real estate description requirements. The key is making sure your property descriptions are sufficient to identify the real estate without being overly broad.

That's helpful. I've been erring on the side of more detail rather than less, but wasn't sure if that was the right approach.

The Certana tool I mentioned earlier also checks fixture filing descriptions against common rejection reasons. Might be worth a look for your situation.

Smart approach! Proactive compliance is always better than reactive fire-fighting.

Glad this thread was helpful. I think I'm going to take a similar targeted approach with our portfolio.