UCC Document Community

Bottom line - file that UCC-3 amendment now to correct the debtor name, but your continuation is probably still valid given the merger documentation. Better safe than sorry with $2.8M in collateral at stake.

I've seen this exact scenario multiple times in my practice. The good news is that most states recognize the continuation as valid when you used the correct filing number, especially with documented merger activity. However, I'd recommend filing the UCC-3 amendment within the next few days to eliminate any potential challenges. Also consider doing a UCC search under both the old and new entity names to see how they appear in the public record - this can help you craft the amendment language to clearly connect both names. With $2.8M in collateral, the small filing fee for the amendment is definitely worth the peace of mind.

I think the fundamental issue is that UCC databases were designed for paper filing systems and haven't been properly updated for electronic filing workflows. The search algorithms are outdated.

This is such a widespread problem! I've been dealing with similar UCC database inconsistencies for months now. What's really frustrating is that we've had to start doing redundant searches across multiple platforms just to make sure we're not missing anything. The lack of standardization between state systems is costing us so much time and creating real liability concerns. Has anyone found a reliable workaround for the continuation filing visibility issues? We've had several close calls where continuations were filed but didn't appear in our initial searches until days later.

One more tip - if you're doing a lot of NC filings, consider bookmarking their business entity search page. I probably use it 3-4 times a week to verify debtor names before filing UCC documents.

This is such a common issue! I've been handling UCC filings for several years and NC really is one of the strictest states when it comes to exact name matching. What I always tell new paralegals is to never trust the loan documents for debtor names - always go straight to the Secretary of State database first. It's saved me countless rejections and the embarrassment of explaining to partners why a filing got bounced back. The temporary perfection clock is stressful enough without having to deal with name matching issues on top of it.

Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious how long it takes them to fix their mistake once you contact them about the missing termination.

This is frustrating but unfortunately pretty common. Banks often have separate departments handling settlements vs UCC filings and they don't always communicate. The good news is you have clear grounds to demand they fix this - your settlement agreement should have language about releasing all security interests. I'd suggest calling them Monday with your settlement paperwork in hand and asking to speak with someone who can handle UCC-3 terminations immediately. Don't let them transfer you around - stay on the line until you get someone who can commit to filing the termination within 30 days max. Also, get their name and direct contact info so you can follow up. The fact that you're trying to get new financing makes this urgent since that UCC-1 is blocking your ability to use that equipment as collateral elsewhere.

We ended up having to get our assignment documentation notarized after the first rejection, even though Article 9 doesn't specifically require notarization. Some SOS offices seem to prefer extra authentication on assignment papers.

I went through something similar with a rejected assignment filing last year. The frustrating thing is that Article 9's written assignment requirements seem straightforward in theory, but the practical implementation can be tricky. What really helped us was creating a standardized assignment template that includes all the required elements: clear identification of the original security agreement, specific collateral description, assignor's signature with date, and most importantly, explicit language stating the assignor's intent to transfer their security interest. We also learned to always reference the original UCC-1 filing number prominently in the assignment document. Since implementing this approach, we haven't had any more rejections. For your $340k collateral situation, I'd definitely recommend getting the documentation perfect before refiling - the priority risk isn't worth cutting corners.