UCC 9-516 comments causing filing rejections - need help understanding rejection reasons
Our law firm has been getting UCC-1 filings rejected with vague 9-516 comments from the filing office. The rejection notices just say 'debtor name insufficient' but don't specify what's wrong. We've triple-checked against the organizational documents and everything looks correct. Has anyone dealt with these cryptic 9-516 rejection comments before? The client's financing is held up and we're running out of time to get this perfected. The debtor is an LLC with a pretty standard name format but something isn't matching their standards apparently.
39 comments
Join the conversation
Freya Thomsen
Ugh, those 9-516 comments are the worst! They're supposed to give you enough info to fix the problem but half the time they're useless. What state are you filing in? Some states are pickier than others about exact punctuation in debtor names.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•We're in Illinois. The debtor name is formatted exactly like it appears on the articles of organization but still getting rejected.
0 coins
Omar Zaki
•Illinois can be really strict about commas and periods in LLC names. Try removing all punctuation except what's absolutely required.
0 coins
AstroAce
9-516 comments should provide sufficient detail for correction according to the UCC, but in practice many filing offices give minimal feedback. For LLCs, verify you're using the exact legal name from the Secretary of State records, not any trade names. Also check if there are any suffix requirements like 'L.L.C.' vs 'LLC' that might be causing the mismatch.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•Good point about checking the SOS records directly. We pulled from the articles but maybe there was an amendment we missed.
0 coins
Chloe Martin
•This happened to me last month! Turned out the LLC had filed a name change amendment two weeks before our UCC-1 and we were using the old name.
0 coins
AstroAce
•Exactly why it's critical to run current searches before filing. Name changes can happen between document preparation and filing.
0 coins
Diego Rojas
I've been dealing with this exact issue lately. Found a tool called Certana.ai that cross-checks your UCC documents against corporate records by uploading PDFs. It caught a debtor name discrepancy that would have caused a rejection. You just upload your charter documents and UCC-1 draft and it flags any mismatches automatically.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•That sounds really helpful. Does it work with Illinois filings specifically?
0 coins
Diego Rojas
•Yeah, it works with any state. The document comparison is what matters - it picks up on subtle differences that are easy to miss when reviewing manually.
0 coins
Anastasia Sokolov
•How reliable is that kind of automated checking though? Seems like something you'd still want to verify yourself.
0 coins
Sean O'Donnell
THE FILING OFFICES NEED TO DO BETTER WITH THEIR 9-516 COMMENTS!!! I've had rejections that just say 'insufficient' with no other explanation. How are we supposed to fix problems we can't identify? This is costing clients money and delaying deals.
0 coins
Zara Ahmed
•I feel your pain. Had a termination rejected three times before figuring out they wanted the original filing number formatted differently.
0 coins
Sean O'Donnell
•YES! And then they act like it's obvious what was wrong when you call. So frustrating.
0 coins
Omar Zaki
For Illinois specifically, I've noticed they're really picky about entity suffixes. Make sure you're using exactly what shows on their corporate database - sometimes it's 'Limited Liability Company' spelled out, sometimes 'L.L.C.' with periods, sometimes 'LLC' without.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•This might be it! We used 'LLC' but the articles might show 'L.L.C.' - I'll double check.
0 coins
StarStrider
•Yeah that's a common gotcha. Also watch out for middle initials vs full middle names if it's an individual debtor.
0 coins
Omar Zaki
•Good point about individuals. Middle name handling varies by state too.
0 coins
Chloe Martin
Quick update from my situation - it was definitely the entity suffix. Changed from 'LLC' to 'L.L.C.' and the filing went through immediately. These systems are so picky about exact matches.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•Thanks for the update! That gives me hope we can figure this out.
0 coins
Luca Esposito
•Glad you got it sorted. These rejection cycles can eat up so much time.
0 coins
Nia Thompson
anyone else think the whole 9-516 system is broken? like why cant they just tell us exactly whats wrong instead of making us guess
0 coins
Sean O'Donnell
•EXACTLY! It's like they want us to fail.
0 coins
AstroAce
•The system could definitely be more user-friendly. Many states are working on improving their rejection explanations.
0 coins
Mateo Rodriguez
I started using that Certana document checker someone mentioned earlier and it's been a game changer. Caught two potential rejection issues before filing that would have cost us days of back and forth with the SOS office.
0 coins
Aisha Abdullah
•How long does the checking process take?
0 coins
Mateo Rodriguez
•Pretty much instant. Upload your docs and it highlights discrepancies within seconds.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•That would definitely save time compared to these rejection cycles.
0 coins
Ethan Wilson
Pro tip: always call the filing office when you get a vague 9-516 comment. Sometimes the clerks can explain what they're seeing that's causing the rejection, even if it's not clear from the written notice.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•Good idea. I'll try calling tomorrow if the suffix fix doesn't work.
0 coins
NeonNova
•Some states have dedicated UCC help lines that are actually pretty helpful.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
Just wanted to add that I've seen 9-516 rejections for weird spacing issues too. Like extra spaces between words or at the end of the debtor name field. The filing systems can be super sensitive to formatting.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
•Oh wow, I never would have thought about trailing spaces. That's definitely something to check.
0 coins
Carmen Diaz
•Yeah the electronic forms sometimes pick up invisible characters that cause problems.
0 coins
AstroAce
•This is why many firms are moving to automated document verification before filing.
0 coins
Ravi Sharma
UPDATE: It was the entity suffix! Changed from 'LLC' to 'L.L.C.' and the filing was accepted immediately. Thanks everyone for the help. Going to look into that Certana tool to avoid this in the future.
0 coins
Chloe Martin
•Awesome! Glad the suffix fix worked for you too.
0 coins
Diego Rojas
•Great to hear! The document verification definitely helps catch these issues before they become problems.
0 coins
Andre Laurent
•Success! Love when these threads have happy endings.
0 coins