UCC search Nevada - debtor name variations causing filing gaps

That's what I was afraid of. Do you know if there's a grace period or if I can still file the UCC-3 amendment retroactively? The name change happened about 18 months ago.

You can file the amendment now, but there might be a priority gap for that 18-month period. Other creditors who filed against the new name during that time could potentially have superior position.

This is why I always set up alerts for borrower name changes. Missed amendments are a nightmare to clean up after the fact.

How did you resolve the priority issue? Did you have to subordinate to creditors who filed during the gap period?

Fortunately our borrower was cooperative and we got affidavits from other creditors confirming our earlier priority date. But it was a lot of extra work that could have been avoided.

Interesting - does it actually connect to the Nevada SOS database for real-time verification?

It analyzes your uploaded documents against each other to catch discrepancies, then provides specific guidance on what filings you need. Super helpful for complex situations like yours where you have multiple name variations to track.

I feel your frustration but the system actually works as designed - it protects searchers by requiring exact name matches. The burden is on secured parties to monitor their debtors.

Easy for you to say when you're not the one who might lose a secured position because of a technicality!

Both of you have valid points. The system prioritizes notice to future creditors, which requires exact matches, but it does create traps for existing secured parties.

Good point about subsidiaries. This borrower does have a related transport company - I should probably search that entity too.

Definitely. Cross-collateralization and guaranty structures can create filing obligations across multiple related entities.

Agree on being methodical. I usually create a spreadsheet tracking all the name variations and search results.

That's smart. Documentation is crucial if you ever need to prove you conducted a reasonable search.

I thought about that but wouldn't that potentially create confusion about which filing is the 'real' one? Plus the original filing date would be different.

Filing a new UCC-1 would give you a later priority date, which could actually hurt your position relative to other creditors. The UCC-3 amendment approach is better.

Good point about priority dating. I was thinking more about ensuring coverage but you're right about the timing implications.

How detailed are the recommendations it provides? Does it account for state-specific filing requirements?

Very detailed - it even catches subtle variations in punctuation or entity designations that could cause search issues. Definitely worth trying for complex situations like this.

Good reminder - the original filing is from 2022 so I've got until 2027 before the continuation is due. At least that's one less thing to worry about right now.

Perfect timing then. You can file the UCC-3 amendment now and still have plenty of time to plan for the continuation filing.

It's worth doing a periodic audit, especially for long-term credit facilities. Entity name changes happen more often than people realize.

I try to include covenant requirements in loan agreements that borrowers must notify us of any name changes within 30 days. Helps catch these issues early.

That's a smart contractual protection. I should suggest adding similar language to our standard loan docs.

You're absolutely right. I'm going to prepare the UCC-3 amendment today and get it filed this week. Thanks everyone for the practical advice - this thread has been incredibly helpful.

Smart move. And definitely document your search methodology in case you need to justify your lien position later. Courts appreciate thorough due diligence.