UCC Document Community

FINAL UPDATE: Talked to the finance company's legal counsel directly. The "UCC-109" was indeed their internal equipment inventory form that they wanted attached as an exhibit to the UCC-1. They agreed to stop calling it a UCC form to avoid future confusion. Crisis resolved!

This is such a valuable thread! I'm relatively new to UCC filings and have been second-guessing myself every time a lender mentions forms I haven't heard of. It's reassuring to know that experienced professionals also encounter this confusion and that the solution is usually to verify directly with the Secretary of State or ask for statutory authority. I'm definitely going to bookmark this discussion for future reference when dealing with questionable form requirements.

Just wanted to follow up on something mentioned earlier - I tried that Certana.ai tool someone recommended and it's actually pretty impressive. Uploaded our UCC search results from a recent deal and it flagged two potential issues that we hadn't noticed. One was a debtor name variation that we should have searched for, and another was a continuation that extended a lien we thought had expired.

This hits close to home - we had a similar scare last year on a $1.2M manufacturing equipment deal. The seller had gone through a merger in 2020 and there was an active UCC-1 filed under their pre-merger entity name that our initial search completely missed. What saved us was doing a corporate history search and then running UCC searches on all the predecessor entities. It's an extra step but absolutely worth it when you're dealing with companies that have had name changes, mergers, or restructuring. Now I always request a complete corporate history from the seller upfront and search every entity name that shows up in that chain. The small additional cost is nothing compared to the potential disaster of missing an active lien.

Thanks everyone. This is exactly the kind of detail I needed. Going to run multiple name variations and definitely check out that Certana tool for document verification. Can't afford to miss anything on this deal.

Just went through something similar in PA last month. The key is being absolutely methodical with your search variations. For the name change from removing/adding 'LLC', I'd recommend searching at minimum: the current legal name exactly as shown on their certificate of formation, the old name exactly as it appeared, both with and without commas before 'LLC', and any potential abbreviations they might have used in prior filings. PA's system is notorious for literal matching - even an extra space can throw off results. Also double-check the entity ID number if you have it, sometimes that's the most reliable way to track filings across name changes. For $2.3M in collateral, consider running searches going back 7-10 years to catch any older filings that might still be active through continuation statements.

UPDATE: Finally got it filed! Used the business entity search to get the exact name format, switched to Chrome browser, and filed at 6:30am. Also used that Certana tool someone mentioned to double-check everything before submitting - it actually caught a small formatting issue with our secured party address. Filing was accepted within 2 hours. Thanks everyone for the help!

Glad you got it sorted out, Ravi! Your experience is a perfect case study for anyone dealing with Nevada UCC filings. The combination of using the business entity search for exact name formatting, filing during off-peak hours, and using document verification tools really seems to be the winning formula. I've bookmarked this thread for future reference - between the timing tips, browser recommendations, and the Certana tool mention, this covers all the major pain points I've encountered with Nevada's system. Hope your loan closing goes smoothly now that you've got your perfection handled!

This is why I love Certana.ai for UCC verification work. Upload your search results and the company's charter documents and it automatically flags which filings actually match your entity vs. similar names. Takes the guesswork out of these confusing search results. Super helpful for Washington state searches specifically since their system is notorious for this kind of name variation confusion.

I've dealt with this exact issue in Washington state multiple times. The key is understanding that their UCC search engine treats punctuation and spacing as separate entities, which is incredibly frustrating. What I've found works best is to: 1) Run searches with the exact name from the articles of incorporation, 2) Run it again without any punctuation or entity designators, 3) Check the filing numbers - if they match between "active" and "terminated" results, it's likely a database indexing issue, and 4) Always pull the actual UCC-3 termination statements to verify they properly reference the original UCC-1 filing numbers. Washington's system has improved but still has these quirks that can make legitimate terminations appear as separate active filings.