UCC 9503 debtor name requirements causing rejection - how strict are they really?

Good point - I did search but couldn't find the entity at all, which is weird since they're definitely active and in good standing. Maybe their system hasn't updated from a recent name change or something?

That's a red flag right there. If you can't find them in the database, there might be a totally different version of the name on file.

That's brilliant - I never would have thought to try without the comma. Going to test that variation right now.

This happens ALL the time. The comma issue is probably 60% of my name rejection problems.

Wait, so which version should we actually use for UCC 9503 compliance? The articles version or whatever's in their system?

That sounds really useful - is it specifically designed for UCC name matching issues?

Yeah, it has a Charter→UCC-1 check workflow that specifically looks for debtor name mismatches and other document inconsistencies. Just upload your PDFs and it highlights potential problems before you file.

Exactly! And some SOS offices update their databases faster than others when there are amendments or corrections filed.

This is why I always call the SOS office directly when I get name rejections. Sometimes their customer service can tell you exactly what format they're expecting.

The worst part is when you're on a tight deadline and have to keep refiling. Each rejection adds another day or two to the process.

At least most states don't charge a new filing fee for corrections anymore. Remember when you had to pay the full fee each time?

Great suggestion - I'll check their most recent annual report. That might show the format the state actually recognizes.

This is smart. The annual reports are usually processed more recently than the original articles, so they're more likely to reflect whatever format is actually in the system.

That's risky though - if the name is seriously wrong, the whole filing could be deemed ineffective for purposes of perfection.

True, but for minor variations like punctuation, an amendment can usually fix it without losing priority.

I'd rather get it right the first time given the size of this deal. Don't want any perfection issues down the road.

That's exactly what I'm going to try next. Thanks for confirming that approach has worked for others.

It's so frustrating that we have to guess at the right format. There should be a standardized way to verify this stuff.

Good to hear another recommendation for that tool. Might be worth trying before I file the next version.

How much does something like that cost? Is it worth it for occasional use or more for high-volume filers?

I think it's pretty reasonable for the time it saves. You just upload your documents and get instant feedback on potential issues.

Awesome! Glad the no-comma approach worked for you too. I swear punctuation is the bane of UCC filings.

Perfect example of why you always need to check multiple name variations. UCC 9503 compliance is all about finding the exact format in their system.

This is such a common issue. Wish there was a better way to verify the correct format before filing.

Great outcome! For future reference, that Certana tool I mentioned earlier would have caught that comma discrepancy automatically by comparing your source documents.