UCC lien notice on accounts receivable of merchant - debtor name verification issues
Running into a mess with a UCC filing situation that's got me second-guessing everything. We're dealing with a merchant cash advance scenario where the funding company filed a UCC-1 against the business's accounts receivable back in 2019. Fast forward to now - we're trying to help this merchant refinance with a traditional SBA loan, but the new lender is flagging potential issues with how the debtor name appears on the original UCC filing versus the current business registration. The original UCC-1 shows the debtor as "Smith Retail Solutions LLC" but the Secretary of State business records now show "Smith Retail Solutions, LLC" (note the comma). The merchant says they never officially changed their name, but apparently the SOS database was updated at some point for formatting consistency. The MCA company is claiming their lien is still valid and refusing to file a termination until full payoff, which the merchant can't afford without the new SBA funding. My question is whether this comma discrepancy could invalidate the original UCC-1 filing? The new SBA lender is nervous about taking a subordinate position if there's any question about the validity of the existing lien. We're in a catch-22 where we need the termination to get the loan, but need the loan to pay for the termination. Has anyone dealt with similar debtor name formatting issues on accounts receivable filings? The merchant's business is suffering while we try to sort this out.
34 comments
Join the conversation
Kaiya Rivera
This is actually more common than you'd think with debtor name variations. The key question is whether a reasonable searcher would find the UCC-1 when searching under the current registered name. Most courts have held that minor punctuation differences like commas don't invalidate filings, but it depends on your state's specific rules and how their search logic works.
0 coins
Katherine Ziminski
•Wait, so you're saying the UCC filing might still be valid even with the name difference? That doesn't help the merchant get out of this situation though.
0 coins
Kaiya Rivera
•Right - validity is one issue, but the practical problem is the MCA company's refusal to terminate. You might need to negotiate a partial payoff or explore whether the SBA lender would accept a subordination agreement instead of requiring full termination.
0 coins
Noah Irving
I had something similar happen last year. The filing was against "ABC Manufacturing Inc" but the business certificate showed "ABC Manufacturing, Inc." - drove me crazy trying to figure out if we had a problem. Ended up running searches both ways and found the original filing under both versions.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•That's a good point about running searches both ways. I should probably verify how the state's search system handles punctuation variations before assuming there's a real problem here.
0 coins
Vanessa Chang
•Most modern UCC search systems are pretty forgiving with punctuation, but you're right to double-check. Some states are more strict than others about exact matches.
0 coins
Madison King
Ugh, MCA companies are the worst about this stuff. They'll hold onto those filings forever if it benefits them. Have you tried explaining to them that the name discrepancy might actually work in their favor by making the filing less discoverable to other creditors?
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•Interesting angle - though I'm not sure I want to suggest their filing might be defective. That could backfire if they decide to file an amendment to fix it.
0 coins
Madison King
•Fair point. These MCA guys are smart enough to cover their tracks if you give them ideas.
0 coins
Julian Paolo
Before you go down the rabbit hole of name variations, I'd recommend using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload both the UCC-1 and the current business registration docs, and it'll instantly flag any inconsistencies that could cause problems. I used it recently for a similar accounts receivable situation and it caught several discrepancies I would have missed manually checking.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•Haven't heard of Certana.ai before - does it actually analyze UCC filings or just compare document text?
0 coins
Julian Paolo
•It does both. The UCC verification workflow specifically checks debtor names, filing numbers, and collateral descriptions across multiple documents. Really helpful for catching these kinds of name matching issues before they become problems with lenders.
0 coins
Kaiya Rivera
•That sounds useful. Manual document comparison is definitely error-prone, especially when you're dealing with multiple variations of business names across different filings.
0 coins
Ella Knight
The real issue here isn't the comma - it's that you're dealing with an MCA lien on accounts receivable. Those are notoriously hard to get released because the MCA company knows they have you over a barrel. The accounts receivable keeps generating value, so they have no incentive to let go early.
0 coins
Katherine Ziminski
•So true. My brother got stuck in one of these MCA deals and it took him three years to get clear of it. They basically own your cash flow.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•Exactly. And since accounts receivable is such broad collateral, it gives them a claim on basically all the business income. Very different from equipment financing where you can point to specific assets.
0 coins
William Schwarz
Check if your state has any specific rules about corporate name formatting in UCC filings. Some states require exact matches to the Secretary of State records, while others are more flexible. Also, when was the SOS database updated? If it was after the UCC filing, that could matter for determining which version is correct.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•Good question about timing. The merchant thinks the SOS database was updated in 2021, so two years after the original UCC-1. Not sure if that helps or hurts our position.
0 coins
William Schwarz
•That timing actually might help. If the UCC was filed using the correct name format at the time, and the state later changed their database formatting, the filing should still be valid. But you'd need to document that timeline carefully.
0 coins
Vanessa Chang
Have you considered getting a formal UCC search done by a title company or search firm? They can usually provide an opinion on whether the name variation would affect the filing's priority or validity. Might be worth the cost for peace of mind before proceeding with the SBA loan.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•That's probably smart given the amounts involved. The SBA loan is for $350K so we need to be absolutely sure about the lien situation before closing.
0 coins
Lauren Johnson
•Definitely worth getting professional search results for that size loan. A few hundred dollars for the search is nothing compared to the risk if you get this wrong.
0 coins
Jade Santiago
Just went through something similar with a client last month. The key was getting everyone to agree on the search methodology upfront. The SBA lender, the MCA company, and our client all had to sign off on how the UCC search would be conducted and what name variations would be considered equivalent.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•That's a really practical approach. How did you get the MCA company to agree to that process?
0 coins
Jade Santiago
•We positioned it as protecting their interests too - if there was really a name problem, they'd want to know about it and fix it. Plus we offered to cover the cost of any necessary UCC-3 amendment if issues were found.
0 coins
Caleb Stone
The accounts receivable aspect makes this trickier than a standard equipment lien. Since AR is constantly turning over, you need to make sure any new financing doesn't interfere with the MCA company's ongoing collection rights. Even if the name issue gets resolved, you might still need a detailed subordination agreement.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•Good point about the subordination agreement. The SBA lender mentioned that possibility but seemed to prefer a clean termination if possible.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•SBA lenders usually prefer terminations because subordination agreements can be complex and create ongoing compliance issues. But sometimes it's the only practical solution with MCA situations.
0 coins
Daniel Price
Whatever you do, don't let this drag on too long. MCA companies sometimes file continuation statements or amendments if they think there might be priority issues. Better to resolve it quickly before they start playing defensive games with additional filings.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•That's a scary thought. The original UCC-1 doesn't expire until 2024, so they have time to file continuations if they want to keep the lien active longer.
0 coins
Daniel Price
•Exactly. And once they start filing amendments or continuations, it gets much harder to argue that the original filing was defective. Strike while the iron is hot.
0 coins
Olivia Evans
I'm curious - have you actually pulled the current UCC search results to see exactly how the debtor name appears in the system? Sometimes the search results format names differently than the original filing, which can give you clues about how the state handles variations.
0 coins
Amelia Dietrich
•We pulled an unofficial search but should probably get the certified version. The unofficial search showed both name formats, but I'm not sure if that means the system treats them as equivalent or just that it's picking up variations.
0 coins
Julian Paolo
•This is exactly why I mentioned Certana.ai earlier - it can help you analyze those search discrepancies systematically instead of trying to interpret the results manually. Upload your search results along with the business docs and it'll flag exactly what name variations are causing issues.
0 coins