UCC creditor name mismatch causing filing rejections - need help

Thanks for the response. We tried attaching merger docs to some electronic filings but got mixed results. Delaware accepted it but Texas rejected saying they don't review attachments for creditor changes. Do you know which states actually require the supporting docs vs just accepting the amendment language?

Texas is notoriously picky about this stuff. For Texas specifically, you might need to call their UCC division directly. They sometimes have different procedures that aren't clearly posted online.

That's helpful! What about the continuation filings though? Can you file a UCC-3 amendment and continuation at the same time, or do you have to wait for the amendment to be accepted first?

Most states let you combine them in a single UCC-3 filing - check the box for both "Amendment" and "Continuation" and include both sets of information. Saves time and filing fees.

Be careful with that approach though. I've seen filings get rejected entirely when they try to do too much in one form. Sometimes it's safer to do the amendment first, get confirmation it's accepted, then file the continuation.

Interesting, never heard of that tool. Does it work with different state forms or just federal formats?

Works with any state's UCC forms since it's reading the actual document content, not just the format. Really helpful for catching those small inconsistencies that cause rejections.

Tell me about it. Our compliance team now requires UCC impact analysis as part of any M&A due diligence. Learned that lesson the hard way.

smart move. we're implementing something similar. too many close calls with lapsed continuations because of this exact issue

That's an interesting point. We've been conservative and trying to clean up all the creditor names first, but maybe we're overthinking it. Have you seen continuations accepted with just successor language?

Yes, especially in states that follow the model UCC code closely. The key is making sure the continuation clearly identifies the original filing and includes the successor relationship. But honestly, it varies by state.

I'd be very careful with that approach. Better to be safe and amend first. A rejected continuation close to the 6-month deadline could be catastrophic for your security interest.

We looked into that but the per-filing cost adds up quickly with 200+ filings. Trying to handle in-house if possible.

Fair enough. Just remember the cost of a service company is usually less than the risk of having security interests lapse due to filing errors.

Good point. I'll dig through the merger docs. The attorneys focused mainly on the asset transfer but there might be UCC-specific language we missed.

Second this recommendation. Used it last month for a similar creditor name issue and it caught several problems we would have missed. Simple PDF upload process.

Seems like that tool might be worth trying given how many rejections we've had. Thanks for the suggestion.

Oh that's a good catch. We've been using the amendment filing date in some of our forms. That could explain some of the rejections.

Exactly. The amendment should reflect when the creditor name actually changed (merger effective date), even if you're filing the amendment months later.

Will do. Sounds like the consensus is to file UCC-3 amendments with proper merger language first, then handle continuations. Going to try the document verification tool too before submitting anything else.