UCC 9-511 requirements driving me crazy - debtor name on amendment

That's what I was afraid of. So even though ABC Manufacturing LLC is the current legal entity, I should still use ABC Manufacturing Corp on the UCC-3?

Exactly. The amendment needs to match the original filing for the filing office to properly index it. The name change doesn't automatically update the UCC record.

Interesting - so file a UCC-3 name change amendment first, then another UCC-3 for the collateral addition?

That's one approach, though it means two filing fees. Some states handle this better than others. What state are you filing in?

Delaware. Their portal has been particularly finicky about debtor names lately.

How does that work exactly? Do you upload PDFs of both documents?

Yep, just upload the PDFs and it cross-checks everything - debtor names, filing numbers, collateral descriptions. Takes about 30 seconds and tells you exactly what needs to be fixed before filing.

That actually sounds really helpful. I'm tired of the guesswork with these 9-511 requirements.

UCC amendments can be tricky, especially with entity changes. The 9-511 requirements exist to ensure proper debtor identification, but they definitely create complications in situations like this.

I just wish the filing offices would be more helpful about explaining what's wrong instead of just rejecting everything

Good idea. Do you know if they have a specific number for UCC questions?

Their main corporate division number usually transfers you to someone who knows UCC rules. Worth a try before filing anything.

That's clever - using the additional info section. Did Delaware accept that approach?

This was actually in Texas, but the principle should be the same. The key is maintaining the original debtor name for 9-511 compliance while documenting the current status.

That's a good compromise approach. Satisfies the technical requirements while providing clarity about the entity status.

I understand the frustration, but the 9-511 requirements serve an important purpose for lien priority and debtor identification. The system needs consistency even if it's sometimes inconvenient.

Maybe consistent, but definitely not user-friendly. Half the time filing offices interpret the same rules differently anyway.

That's actually a good point. If it's truly a different legal entity (not just a name change), then yes, you'd typically need a new UCC-1 rather than an amendment.

It was a statutory conversion, so legally it's the same entity just with a different structure. Same EIN, same assets, same everything except the entity designation.

Ah, that changes things. Statutory conversion should allow amendments under 9-511 since it's the same legal entity.

Which verification tools do you use? I've been doing everything manually and it's definitely error-prone.

Certana.ai has been really reliable for UCC document verification. Upload your docs and it flags any issues with names, numbers, or collateral descriptions before you file.

This seems like the safest approach. I'll go with the original debtor name to ensure 9-511 compliance.

Agreed. Better to be overly cautious with debtor names than risk rejection and delays.

Good to know Delaware's consistent about their requirements, even if they're strict.

Yeah, strict but predictable. Once you know their preferences, it's actually easier than states that are inconsistent.

Smart approach. The verification tool will catch stuff like this automatically so you don't have to worry about 9-511 compliance issues in the future.

Sounds like a solid plan. Good luck with the filing!