UCC Filing Issues with Security Agreement E-Acknowledgement Forms from 2020
I'm dealing with a nightmare situation involving a security agreement that had an e-acknowledgement back in 2020. The original UCC-1 was filed electronically but now I'm getting pushback from the SOS office saying the acknowledgement format doesn't match current requirements for a UCC-3 amendment I need to file. The debtor name on the 2020 security agreement shows as 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but our current corporate records show 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' with the comma. I know this sounds minor but the filing keeps getting rejected. Has anyone dealt with e-acknowledgement formatting issues when the original security agreement is from 2020? I'm worried about the continuation deadline approaching and these document inconsistencies are holding everything up. The collateral description references equipment that's been partially sold off so I need to amend the original filing but can't get past this acknowledgement verification step.
38 comments
Join the conversation
CosmicCowboy
E-acknowledgement formats definitely changed between 2020 and now. The SOS systems got updated and they're stricter about document consistency. You might need to get a new acknowledgement that matches current standards before they'll accept your UCC-3.
0 coins
Natasha Orlova
•This is exactly what happened to me last month! The 2020 acknowledgements don't play nice with the new portal system.
0 coins
Javier Cruz
•Wait, do you mean the actual signature format or just the document template? I'm confused about what specifically needs to match.
0 coins
Emma Thompson
The comma issue is HUGE. I've seen filings rejected for less. ABC Manufacturing LLC vs ABC Manufacturing, LLC are treated as different legal entities by the system. You need to determine which name is actually correct according to your state's corporate records.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•That's what I'm afraid of. The original security agreement uses the version without the comma but the current corporate filing shows it with the comma. Do I amend the UCC-1 to match current records or stick with the original agreement?
0 coins
Emma Thompson
•Always go with what's in the current corporate records. File a UCC-3 amendment to correct the debtor name first, then handle your other amendments.
0 coins
Malik Jackson
•I disagree. The UCC-1 should match the security agreement exactly as signed. Changing the debtor name could create a gap in perfection.
0 coins
Isabella Costa
Had a similar mess with e-acknowledgement verification. Ended up using Certana.ai's document checker to upload both my original security agreement and the UCC-1 to verify everything matched before filing the amendment. It caught the name discrepancy and showed exactly what needed to be corrected. Super helpful for avoiding those rejection loops.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•That sounds like exactly what I need. Did it handle the e-acknowledgement format differences from 2020?
0 coins
Isabella Costa
•It flagged the document inconsistencies but I still had to get a new acknowledgement. At least I knew exactly what was wrong before spending time on the filing.
0 coins
StarSurfer
The SOS office is being ridiculous about this stuff lately. They're rejecting filings for the smallest formatting issues. I spent three weeks going back and forth over an acknowledgement that was perfectly valid when filed.
0 coins
Ravi Malhotra
•Tell me about it. They act like a missing comma is the end of the world but then their own system has bugs that duplicate filings.
0 coins
Freya Christensen
•At least they're consistent about rejecting everything LOL
0 coins
Omar Hassan
•The new portal system is definitely more picky than the old one. But honestly, the document consistency requirements make sense from a legal standpoint.
0 coins
Chloe Robinson
For the continuation deadline issue - you can file your UCC-3 continuation even while the amendment is pending. The continuation doesn't require the same acknowledgement verification as amendments to debtor names or collateral descriptions.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•Really? I thought I had to resolve the name issue before filing anything else.
0 coins
Chloe Robinson
•Continuation filings are different. They just extend the existing filing as-is. You can deal with the name correction separately.
0 coins
Diego Chavez
Check your state's UCC guide for e-acknowledgement requirements. Some states have specific formatting rules for electronic signatures that changed after 2020. The acknowledgement might need to include additional metadata or use a different certificate format.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•I'll look into that. The original was done through DocuSign but I'm not sure if that meets current requirements.
0 coins
NeonNebula
•DocuSign should be fine but the certificate format might need updating. Check if they have a UCC-specific template.
0 coins
Diego Chavez
•Exactly. The signature is valid but the certificate format needs to match what the SOS system expects now.
0 coins
Anastasia Kozlov
This is why I always double-check document consistency before filing anything. One small discrepancy can derail the whole process, especially with amendments.
0 coins
Sean Kelly
•Easy to say when you're not dealing with documents from 2020 that used different standards.
0 coins
Anastasia Kozlov
•Fair point. The standards definitely evolved and it's not always clear what needs updating.
0 coins
Zara Mirza
You mentioned the collateral was partially sold off - make sure your UCC-3 amendment properly reflects the current collateral. Don't just focus on the name issue and forget to update the collateral description.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•Good point. I was so focused on the acknowledgement problem I haven't finalized the collateral language yet.
0 coins
Zara Mirza
•Get that sorted before filing. Nothing worse than fixing one issue and creating another.
0 coins
Luca Russo
•And make sure the collateral description is specific enough to identify what's still covered but not so specific that it excludes future acquisitions if that's relevant.
0 coins
Nia Harris
Had a client with the exact same issue last year. The solution was to get a new acknowledgement that references the original 2020 security agreement but uses current formatting standards. The SOS accepted it once the acknowledgement met their current requirements.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•Did they have to re-sign the entire security agreement or just get a new acknowledgement?
0 coins
Nia Harris
•Just a new acknowledgement referencing the original agreement. Much simpler than redoing the whole document.
0 coins
GalaxyGazer
Before you file anything else, I'd recommend using something like Certana.ai to upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together. It'll show you exactly what matches and what doesn't, including the acknowledgement format. Saved me tons of time on a complex amendment last month.
0 coins
Mateo Sanchez
•Does it actually check acknowledgement formats or just the document content?
0 coins
GalaxyGazer
•It checks document consistency overall - flags things like name mismatches, missing signatures, format issues. Really thorough.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•That would be perfect. I need to see all the inconsistencies before I start filing amendments.
0 coins
Aisha Mahmood
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with some 2020 documents too and curious what approach works best.
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•Will do. Hoping to have this sorted out before my continuation deadline.
0 coins
Ethan Moore
•Same here. These legacy document issues are becoming more common as the systems get updated.
0 coins