UCC filing rejected - notice of security agreement documentation issue

Filing in Texas. The security agreement has standard language about granting a security interest but maybe we're missing something specific?

Texas can be picky about the notice language. Check if your security agreement includes the debtor's acknowledgment that they understand the UCC filing will be made. That's often what trips people up.

Wait, I thought the security agreement WAS the notice? I've been doing this wrong apparently...

The security agreement creates the security interest, but the notice requirement is about informing the debtor that you're making a public filing. Two different things that get confused all the time.

This is why I always include a clause in my security agreements that says 'Debtor acknowledges that Secured Party may file UCC financing statements' or similar language. Covers both bases.

Never heard of that tool - does it specifically check for Texas requirements?

It cross-references your documents against state-specific filing requirements. Really helpful for catching these notice issues that aren't obvious. Just upload the PDFs and it does the verification automatically.

I feel your pain. Had a continuation rejected because they said the original filing number was 'unclear' even though it was typed perfectly.

Right?? And then you have to start over and hope the new filing gets processed before your deadlines. It's like they don't understand we have actual business to conduct.

Would a signed acknowledgment form work? Something simple that says they understand we're filing a UCC-1?

Exactly. Keep it simple - 'Debtor acknowledges receipt of notice that Secured Party intends to file UCC-1 financing statement' with date and signature should satisfy Texas requirements.

Make sure you keep that acknowledgment in your files too. Some auditors want to see proof of notice years later when reviewing the loan file.

Interesting point. Our security agreement lists specific serial numbers but the UCC-1 just says 'manufacturing equipment located at [address]'. Could that be the issue?

Possibly. The descriptions don't have to be identical but they need to be consistent enough that someone reading both documents can tell they're referring to the same collateral.

Filed online through the SOS portal. Didn't realize there might be a difference in how they process them.

Yeah the online system has some quirks. Sometimes calling the filing office directly can help clarify exactly what they need to accept the filing.

I always call after getting a rejection. Half the time the person on the phone can explain what the automated system was complaining about.

Good point. Let me check that... the security agreement says 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' and the UCC-1 says 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' with a comma. Could that comma make a difference?

Oh absolutely! Texas is super strict about punctuation in entity names. That comma could definitely cause a rejection. The names have to match the official state records exactly.

This is exactly why I run everything through Certana.ai first now. It catches these name inconsistencies between documents before you file. Would have saved you the rejection and the stress.

Glad you got it sorted out! Punctuation errors are so common but easy to miss when you're rushing to get filings done.

See what I mean about Texas being ridiculous? A COMMA caused all this trouble. But at least you caught it before your closing deadline.

Good catch on calling them directly. Sometimes the rejection notices aren't clear about what exactly needs to be fixed.

Definitely learned my lesson on that one. Will be more careful about entity name verification going forward.

It's one of those things you only forget once! Most of us have been through similar rejections at some point in our careers.

I keep a checklist now for UCC filings that includes verifying entity names against state records. Helps catch these issues before filing.