UCC continuation filed but debtor name shows slight variation - will this void our security interest?

That's reassuring but how do we know for sure? I mean, if push comes to shove in a bankruptcy proceeding, couldn't another creditor challenge our perfection based on the name discrepancy?

You're right to be cautious. The "seriously misleading" test is generally applied, but it varies by jurisdiction. I'd recommend doing a search under both versions of the name to see if both filings come up. If they do, you're likely fine.

Did you end up filing an amendment to fix it? That's what I'm trying to figure out - whether to leave it alone or file a corrective amendment.

I ended up leaving it alone after doing some research. The filing was still discoverable under both name variations, so I didn't want to risk creating more confusion with additional amendments.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease with UCC amendments. If the continuation is already on file and searchable, an amendment might just muddy the waters.

Good idea, I'll try that test. Haven't done it yet but that makes sense as a practical way to verify if the filing would be found.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest. The search test is probably the best way to know if you have a real problem or just a technical variation.

That sounds helpful - does it actually analyze the legal significance of the differences or just flag them?

It flags the differences and provides guidance on whether they're likely to be problematic. For name variations like yours, it helped me understand which differences matter legally versus which are just cosmetic.

Interesting, I haven't heard of that service before. Does it work with different states' UCC rules or is it more general?

I feel your pain. The worst part is that the stakes are so high - one small mistake could potentially invalidate a huge security interest.

Exactly! And the SOS offices are no help - they just process what you file, they don't warn you about potential issues.

That's a good point about continuations being more forgiving. The filing number references the original UCC-1 correctly, so there's that connection.

Right, the filing number cross-reference is crucial. That's what creates the legal chain between the original filing and the continuation.

Good suggestion. I'll look up our state's specific guidance on this issue.

Most states follow the model UCC rules pretty closely, but there can be some variation in how they interpret name requirements.

That's probably the smartest approach for this amount of money. Did the attorney think the comma difference was problematic?

In my case it was a different issue, but the attorney said punctuation differences are usually not seriously misleading unless they change the fundamental identity of the debtor.

Getting legal advice is always the safest bet when there's this much money on the line. Forums are great for general guidance but not for high-stakes legal decisions.

I've been leaning toward this approach. What's the worst that could happen with filing an amendment - just additional cost and paperwork?

Pretty much. The main risk is just creating more complexity in the filing record, but if it gives you certainty about the debtor name, it's probably worth it.

That sounds like exactly what I need. Does it provide specific recommendations for corrections or just identify the issues?

It provides analysis of the issues and guidance on whether they're likely to be legally significant. Really helpful for making informed decisions about whether to file amendments.