UCC Filing Confusion - D&B Database Not Matching Secretary of State Records
I'm having a major headache trying to reconcile UCC filings between what shows up in Dun & Bradstreet's database versus what's actually filed with our Secretary of State. We've got a borrower whose D&B credit report shows multiple UCC filings that don't match the filing numbers or dates when I search the state database directly. Some filings appear terminated in D&B but still show active in the SOS system. This is creating serious due diligence problems for our loan committee. Has anyone else dealt with discrepancies between D&B UCC data and actual state filing records? I need to figure out which source is accurate before we can move forward with this secured transaction.
33 comments
Join the conversation
GalaxyGazer
This is actually pretty common unfortunately. D&B pulls UCC data from multiple sources and sometimes their updates lag behind the actual state filings by weeks or even months. The state Secretary of State database is always going to be the authoritative source for UCC filings, continuations, and terminations. I always tell people to verify directly with the state system rather than relying on third-party databases for critical lending decisions.
0 coins
Mateo Sanchez
•Exactly this. We learned this the hard way last year when we almost missed a lien that D&B showed as terminated but was still very much active in the state system. Cost us nearly $50K in additional due diligence work.
0 coins
Aisha Mahmood
•How long does it typically take for D&B to update their UCC records after a state filing? We're seeing 2-3 week delays consistently.
0 coins
Ethan Moore
I've been dealing with this exact issue for months now. The problem is that D&B aggregates data from all 50 states plus DC and territories, but each state has different filing systems and update schedules. Some states push updates to third-party vendors daily, others weekly, and some still require manual data entry. Plus D&B has to process and standardize all that data which adds more delay. Always, ALWAYS verify with the actual state database for any critical lending decisions.
0 coins
Yuki Kobayashi
•This is why I always run dual searches - D&B for the broad overview and then state-by-state verification for anything important. Takes longer but saves headaches later.
0 coins
Carmen Vega
•What's your typical workflow for multi-state UCC searches? Do you hit every state the borrower has done business in?
0 coins
Ethan Moore
•We focus on states of incorporation, principal place of business, and anywhere they have significant assets. But yeah for major deals we cast a pretty wide net.
0 coins
QuantumQuester
Had a similar nightmare last month. Found out about this tool called Certana.ai that actually helped us verify our UCC documents by cross-checking everything. You can upload your D&B report and the actual state filing PDFs and it instantly flags any discrepancies between debtor names, filing numbers, and document details. Saved us hours of manual comparison work and caught two filings that had slightly different debtor name variations that could have caused problems later.
0 coins
Andre Moreau
•That sounds useful - does it work for comparing multiple state databases or just document verification?
0 coins
QuantumQuester
•It's more for document verification - you upload the PDFs and it checks for consistency issues. Really handy for making sure your UCC-1 matches your corporate charter or that a UCC-3 amendment properly references the original filing.
0 coins
Zoe Stavros
The real problem is that D&B sometimes gets partial information from states and fills in the gaps with assumptions. I've seen them list a continuation filing as a new UCC-1 because they couldn't properly link it to the original filing. Their customer service is basically useless when you try to get corrections made too.
0 coins
Jamal Harris
•OMG yes! Tried to get them to correct an obvious error where they had the wrong debtor name (missing a comma that completely changed the legal entity) and they wanted like 6 different forms of documentation. Took 3 months.
0 coins
Mei Chen
•This is exactly why I don't trust D&B for anything more than a starting point. They're fine for getting a general sense of what's out there but you need to verify everything independently.
0 coins
Liam Sullivan
One thing that's really frustrating is when D&B shows a UCC as 'lapsed' but doesn't clearly indicate whether it was properly terminated or just expired. The state database will show you exactly what happened - whether there was a UCC-3 termination filed or if it just hit the 5-year limit without a continuation. That distinction matters a lot for lien priority analysis.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
•Great point. And some states have different lapse rules too - not all are exactly 5 years. Delaware is a bit different if I remember correctly.
0 coins
CosmicCommander
•Delaware is 5 years like most states, but they have some quirky rules about fixture filings that can extend beyond that. Always check the specific state statutes.
0 coins
Giovanni Colombo
I've started keeping a spreadsheet of discrepancies I find between D&B and state databases. It's honestly shocking how often they don't match. Filed a complaint with D&B about data quality and they basically said 'thanks for the feedback' and did nothing. Really makes you wonder about the reliability of their other credit data if they can't get public records right.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Qasimi
•That's actually a really good idea about tracking discrepancies. Might help identify patterns in which states or types of filings are most problematic.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
•Have you noticed any particular states that are consistently worse? I feel like we see more issues with Texas and Florida but that might just be because we do more business there.
0 coins
Sofia Ramirez
The timing issue is huge. We had a deal where D&B showed a UCC as active but the borrower had actually filed a UCC-3 termination three weeks earlier. The termination was clearly visible in the state system but D&B hadn't picked it up yet. Could have seriously messed up our security interest analysis if we hadn't double-checked.
0 coins
Dmitry Volkov
•This is why I always tell people to search the state databases directly for anything time-sensitive. Third-party aggregators just can't keep up with real-time changes.
0 coins
StarSeeker
•How do you handle it when you're dealing with borrowers in multiple states? Searching each state individually gets pretty tedious.
0 coins
Sofia Ramirez
•We prioritize based on where their main assets are located and where they're incorporated. For smaller deals we might rely more on D&B but for anything over $1M we're doing comprehensive state-by-state verification.
0 coins
Ava Martinez
Another issue I've run into is that D&B sometimes shows multiple entries for the same UCC filing with slightly different debtor names or addresses. They'll have one entry for 'ABC Company Inc' and another for 'ABC Company, Inc.' even though it's the same filing. Makes it look like there are more liens than actually exist.
0 coins
Miguel Ortiz
•That's a really good catch. Debtor name variations are such a pain point in UCC work. One missing comma or abbreviation can completely change the legal entity.
0 coins
Zainab Omar
•I've been using Certana.ai to catch exactly these kinds of name inconsistencies. You can upload your corporate documents and UCC filings and it flags any variations that might cause problems. Really helps with the detail work.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
The bottom line is that D&B is a useful screening tool but you absolutely cannot rely on it as your sole source for UCC due diligence. I always tell my team to treat it as a starting point - it might flag potential issues or give you a sense of what's out there, but you need to verify everything with the actual state databases before making any lending decisions. Too much money at stake to rely on potentially outdated or incomplete data.
0 coins
Yara Sayegh
•Completely agree. I think a lot of people get lazy and just rely on the D&B report because it's easier, but that's a recipe for problems down the road.
0 coins
NebulaNova
•What's your standard practice for documenting the discrepancies you find? Do you keep copies of both the D&B report and the state search results for your loan files?
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Yes, absolutely. We keep screenshots of both sources with timestamps. If there's ever a question later about our due diligence, we want to be able to show exactly what information was available when and from which sources.
0 coins
Keisha Williams
Just want to add that this isn't unique to D&B - I've seen similar issues with other commercial databases too. The fundamental problem is that they're trying to aggregate data from 50+ different state systems that all work differently. Some states have great APIs, others are still basically manual entry. Until there's better standardization across state filing systems, these discrepancies are going to keep happening.
0 coins
Paolo Conti
•That's a really good point about the systemic issues. It's not necessarily that D&B is doing anything wrong, it's just the nature of trying to aggregate inconsistent data sources.
0 coins
Amina Diallo
•Still doesn't excuse the fact that they're selling this data to lenders who are making million-dollar decisions based on it. There should be better quality control and clearer disclaimers about data limitations.
0 coins