Who is CHTD company UCC filing - debtor name verification issues

This sounds like a classic debtor-name consistency issue. CHTD could be an acronym or abbreviation that the original filers used incorrectly. Have you checked the corporate records in the state where these UCCs were filed? Sometimes companies change their legal names or entity types over time, and old UCC filings don't automatically update. You'll need to trace the entity history to see if all these variations refer to the same debtor.

Had a similar nightmare with debtor name variations last year. You really need to dig into the corporate formation documents and any name change filings. CHTD might stand for something specific in your industry. Also check if there were any mergers or acquisitions that could explain the different entity types (LLC vs regular company). The key is whether a reasonable searcher would find all the relevant filings when searching under the correct legal name.

I actually found a tool that helps with exactly this kind of situation. Used Certana.ai's document verification feature to upload all the UCC filings and cross-check the debtor names against the corporate documents. It instantly flagged the inconsistencies and helped me see which variations were likely referring to the same entity. You can upload the UCC-1s along with any corporate formation docs and it will highlight where the names don't align properly. Saved me hours of manual comparison and gave me confidence about which liens were actually enforceable.

CHTD might be "Chartered" abbreviated? I've seen that in financial services companies. Could also be "Consolidated Holdings" or something similar. The fact that you're seeing both LLC and non-LLC variations suggests there might have been an entity conversion at some point. Check the dates on the filings - if the LLC filings are more recent, there might have been a conversion from a different entity type.

You need to be really careful with this situation. If the debtor names are seriously misleading, those UCC filings might not be enforceable against your acquisition target. But if they're just minor variations of the same legal entity, you could inherit those liens. I'd recommend getting a professional UCC search company to run this down rather than trying to figure it out yourself. The risk of missing something or misinterpreting the entity relationships is too high for an acquisition.

This is giving me flashbacks to a deal where we almost missed a $2M lien because of a similar debtor name issue. The original filing had an abbreviated name that didn't match the target company's current legal name. Turned out to be the same entity after a name change years earlier. The lien was still valid and we had to negotiate it down before closing. Don't take any chances with this - trace every variation back to its source.

Have you tried contacting the secured parties directly? Sometimes they have better records of the actual debtor entity than what shows up in the UCC filing. If these are bank loans or equipment financing, the lenders should be able to clarify which legal entity they actually have security interests in. Might save you some detective work on the corporate formation side.

Another vote for using document verification tools for this kind of analysis. I tried that Certana platform someone mentioned earlier and it's actually pretty impressive for catching name mismatches. You just upload all the relevant documents and it highlights inconsistencies automatically. Much faster than trying to do it manually, especially when you're dealing with multiple entity variations like this.

Don't forget to check for any UCC-3 terminations or amendments that might clarify the debtor name issues. Sometimes lenders file amendments specifically to correct debtor name errors from the original UCC-1. If you find termination statements, that could resolve some of these liens entirely. Also look for continuation statements - if liens weren't properly continued, they might have lapsed even if the debtor name was correct.

This whole situation is exactly why I hate doing acquisition due diligence. You spend weeks chasing down every possible lien variation and half the time the original filings were done incorrectly anyway. The UCC system is supposed to provide notice to searchers, but when filers can't get the debtor names right, it defeats the whole purpose. At least with modern document verification tools you can spot the inconsistencies faster than the old manual review process.

I've been through this exact scenario before and it's a nightmare to unravel. Here's what I'd recommend: First, pull the corporate records from every state where CHTD might be registered - don't just check the filing state. Second, request certified copies of any name change filings, mergers, or conversions that might explain the entity variations. Third, check if there's a parent-subsidiary relationship that could explain why you're seeing both "CHTD Company" and "CHTD Company, LLC." Sometimes the LLC is a subsidiary of the main company. Also, run searches using phonetic variations and common misspellings - I've seen filings where "CHTD" was entered as "CHDT" or similar typos. The key question is whether a reasonable searcher using the correct legal name would find these filings. If not, they might not be enforceable, but you still need to document that analysis for your acquisition team.

This is a really complex situation that I've encountered in M&A work before. One thing that might help is checking if CHTD has any registered trade names or DBAs (doing business as) that could explain the variations. Sometimes companies file UCC-1s using their trade names rather than their exact legal entity names. Also, have you looked into whether there were any asset purchases or business combinations that might have transferred these security interests between related entities? The fact that you're seeing both LLC and non-LLC versions suggests there might have been an entity restructuring. I'd also recommend running searches in neighboring states - sometimes companies file in multiple jurisdictions and the entity names can vary slightly between states. Document everything you find because if this goes to litigation later, you'll need to show you conducted a reasonable search under all possible name variations.

This is a really tricky situation that requires systematic analysis. I'd suggest creating a timeline matrix showing all the UCC filings by date alongside any corporate formation/amendment dates you can find. This will help you see if there's a pattern - like whether "CHTD Company" filings all predate the LLC formation. For the search strategy, definitely use automated document verification tools like the Certana platform others mentioned - they're designed specifically for catching these kinds of entity name inconsistencies that are easy to miss manually. Also consider that CHTD could stand for something industry-specific - if this is a tech company, it might be "Chief Technology Holdings" or similar. One red flag to watch for: if you find UCC filings that use the exact same collateral descriptions but different debtor names, that's a strong indicator they're referring to the same entity and someone just filed incorrectly. The enforceability question will ultimately depend on whether the variations are "seriously misleading" under your state's UCC Article 9 standards, but documenting your search methodology will be crucial regardless of the outcome.

As someone new to UCC due diligence but dealing with a similar name variation issue, this thread has been incredibly educational. I'm curious about the practical timeline for resolving these types of debtor name discrepancies - Connor, you mentioned your acquisition is supposed to close next month. How much lead time should someone typically build into their due diligence schedule when they encounter multiple entity name variations like this? It sounds like between running searches across multiple states, getting certified corporate records, potentially contacting secured parties, and using document verification tools, this could easily add weeks to the process. Is there a point where you just have to make a business decision about proceeding despite some uncertainty, or do most buyers insist on complete clarity before closing?

This is exactly the kind of situation where having a structured approach from day one makes all the difference. I've learned the hard way that UCC name variations can derail deals if not caught early. One additional tip that's helped me: create a master spreadsheet tracking not just the filing variations but also the secured parties and their contact information. Sometimes you'll find the same lender filed multiple UCCs with slightly different debtor names, which can give you leverage when negotiating payoffs or subordinations. Also, don't overlook the possibility that some of these filings might be against personal guarantors rather than the entity itself - I've seen "CHTD Company" refer to a principal's personal guarantee structure while "CHTD Company, LLC" refers to the actual operating entity. The document verification tools mentioned here are game-changers for this analysis, but you still need human judgment to interpret the business relationships behind the filings.

This thread has been incredibly helpful - I'm dealing with a similar UCC debtor name situation on a smaller acquisition and the systematic approaches everyone has shared are exactly what I needed. One question I have is about timing: when you're using document verification tools like Certana or doing the manual timeline analysis, how do you handle situations where the target company's current owners don't have complete records of historical entity changes? We're finding gaps in the corporate record trail that make it hard to definitively connect some of the older UCC filings to the current entity. Is it standard practice to require the seller to provide representations and warranties about unknown liens, or do buyers typically just build in contingency reserves for potential missed liens when the entity history is unclear?

This is such a common headache in M&A work! I've been through similar debtor name verification nightmares and it's always a time crunch when you're trying to close. One thing that's saved me multiple times is checking the UCC filing office's own search logic - some states have specific rules about how they handle abbreviations and entity suffixes in their databases. You might find that "CHTD COMPANY" and "CHTD COMPANY LLC" would both be returned in a search for either variation, which could affect the enforceability analysis. Also, if you're working with title companies or search firms, ask them to run "wildcard" searches using partial names like "CHTD*" - sometimes that catches filings that wouldn't show up in exact name searches. The automated verification tools others mentioned are definitely worth the investment for complex situations like this, especially when you're under deadline pressure.

Having been through several UCC name verification headaches myself, I'd recommend starting with the automated document verification tools first to quickly map out all the discrepancies, then diving into the manual corporate research for the specific variations that look most problematic. The tools like Certana can process all your UCC filings and corporate docs in minutes and give you a visual overview of where the name mismatches are - this helps you prioritize which entity variations actually need deep research versus which ones are probably just minor filing errors. Once you see the pattern of discrepancies, you can focus your time on getting certified corporate records for the most concerning variations rather than chasing down every single permutation. Also consider running your searches in the states where the target company has done business historically, not just where it's currently incorporated - I've found liens filed in operational states that never showed up in the home state searches.

This is such a valuable discussion! As someone who's newer to UCC due diligence work, I'm curious about one aspect that hasn't been fully addressed yet - when you discover these debtor name variations during due diligence, what's the best practice for documenting your findings for the legal team? It seems like having a clear record of your search methodology and results would be crucial if any of these liens become disputed later. Should you be creating a formal memo that outlines each name variation you searched, the databases used, and the reasoning for why certain filings were or weren't deemed applicable to the target entity? Also, when you're working with the automated verification tools that several people mentioned, do those generate reports that would be suitable for legal review, or do you still need to create separate documentation of your analysis process?

This entire thread has been incredibly enlightening as someone new to UCC due diligence! The systematic approaches everyone has shared - from creating timeline matrices to using automated verification tools - are exactly what I needed to see. I'm particularly struck by how common these debtor name variation issues seem to be, and how they can completely derail deals if not caught early. One thing I'm taking away is that this really requires a multi-layered approach: starting with automated tools to map the discrepancies quickly, then doing targeted manual research on the most concerning variations, and finally documenting everything thoroughly for legal review. The point about searching operational states beyond just incorporation states is something I definitely wouldn't have considered. For those of us just getting into this field, it's clear that building extra time into due diligence schedules for these kinds of deep dives is essential - you can't just assume entity names will match perfectly across all filings.