UCC search showing confusing results - need help interpreting what I found

Name variations like that are actually pretty common in UCC filings unfortunately. The periods and comma differences you're seeing between 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' and 'A.B.C. Manufacturing, LLC' could be legitimate if both versions appear on official documents. The key is checking what name appears on the debtor's organizational documents. If the UCC-3 continuation was accepted by the filing office, they probably determined it was sufficient to continue the original UCC-1. But yeah, those discrepancies can definitely make you nervous when you're trying to do clean due diligence.

For the partial termination issue - you need to look at the specific language in that UCC-3. If it terminates only the listed serial numbers, then yes, the rest of the 'all equipment' collateral description from the original UCC-1 would still be encumbered. Partial terminations are tricky because they modify but don't eliminate the original filing. You'll want to cross-reference those serial numbers against whatever equipment you're looking to purchase.

I ran into something similar last month and ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool to sort it out. You can upload the UCC-1 and UCC-3 PDFs and it will instantly cross-check the debtor names and filing numbers to show you exactly where the inconsistencies are. It flagged the name discrepancies immediately and helped me see that while the names were slightly different, they were both variations that appeared in the debtor's corporate records. Really saved me time compared to manually comparing everything.

Ugh I hate when UCC searches turn up messy results like this. You'd think after all these years the filing systems would be better at catching obvious name inconsistencies before accepting documents. Now you're stuck trying to figure out if some lawyer just got sloppy with punctuation or if there's a real legal issue with the filings.

Here's what I'd recommend for your situation: First, get copies of ABC Manufacturing's articles of incorporation or LLC operating agreement to see the exact legal name. Then compare that against both UCC filings to see which one matches. For the partial termination, you're correct that equipment not specifically listed would still be encumbered. If you're serious about purchasing, you might want to get a written confirmation from the secured party about what equipment is actually released. Don't rely solely on the UCC-3 termination language if there's any ambiguity.

This is reminding me of a nightmare deal I worked on where we found like 8 different variations of the debtor name across various UCC filings. Turned out the company had gone through several name changes and mergers over the years but nobody bothered to clean up the UCC records properly. We ended up having to trace back through years of corporate documents just to figure out which liens were actually valid.

One thing to keep in mind is that even if there are technical defects in the debtor name on the continuation, it doesn't automatically invalidate the original UCC-1. The continuation just extends the effectiveness period, but the original filing might still be perfected if it had the correct debtor name. You'd need to look at the specific state's rules about what constitutes a 'seriously misleading' error in debtor names.

Have you tried running the search using both name variations to see if you get different results? Sometimes the search logic will pick up filings under one version but not the other, which could give you a more complete picture of what's out there.

Just went through something similar and ended up using that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. Super easy - just uploaded the UCC PDFs and it immediately highlighted all the name inconsistencies and cross-referenced the filing numbers. Saved me hours of manual comparison and gave me confidence that I wasn't missing anything important. The report it generated was also helpful for explaining the issues to my client.

This thread is making me realize I probably haven't been thorough enough in my own UCC due diligence. I usually just do a basic search and call it good, but sounds like there are a lot of potential pitfalls I'm not considering.

Update - I ran the search again using the alternate name format and found two additional UCC-1 filings I missed the first time. Now I'm even more confused because it looks like there might be multiple secured parties with overlapping collateral descriptions. This is turning into a much bigger project than I anticipated.