UCC Document Community

Bottom line - you need to get legal counsel involved ASAP if you haven't already. Fraud cases involving secured transactions require specialized expertise and the stakes are too high to handle this yourself. The interplay between UCC law, fraud principles, and state-specific variations is complex enough that you really need professional guidance.

This is a really complex situation that highlights how fraud can create unexpected vulnerabilities even for properly perfected secured parties. Based on the discussion here, it seems like your good faith reliance on legitimate-appearing documentation is your strongest defense. One thing I'd add is to make sure you're documenting the current condition and location of the equipment - if this turns into a three-way dispute between you, the borrower, and the original seller, having clear evidence of the collateral's status could be important. Also, consider whether your loan agreement has any representations or warranties from the borrower about clear title that might give you additional recourse against them personally, even if the equipment becomes unavailable. The 70% recovery that Paolo mentioned shows these situations can sometimes be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation, which might be worth exploring given the costs and uncertainty of court proceedings.

Update: I ended up filing the UCC-3 amendment with the expanded after acquired property language the bank wanted. Used one of those document checking tools someone mentioned to make sure everything was consistent between the security agreement and UCC filing. Found a couple small issues that would have caused problems. Amendment was accepted and the closing went smoothly. Thanks for all the advice.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Adriana! This is exactly the kind of real-world outcome that helps when dealing with similar situations. I'm curious - when you say the document checking tool found "a couple small issues," were these things like minor spelling variations in the debtor name or more substantive problems with the collateral descriptions? I'm always trying to learn what specific details to watch out for in these filings.

One last tip - if you find any UCC filings that concern you, don't hesitate to reach out to the secured party directly. Sometimes the collateral descriptions are broader than they need to be and you can get clarity on what's actually covered.

This thread is incredibly helpful! I'm actually working on my first acquisition deal (much smaller scale) and had no idea about the county fixture filing requirements or the Oklahoma Corporation Commission searches for oil and gas operations. The checklist approach seems smart - I was just planning to do the basic SOS search but clearly that's not nearly comprehensive enough. Question: for those using search companies, what's the typical turnaround time and cost range for a thorough Oklahoma UCC search including all these additional databases?

For future reference, keep a backup plan for critical searches. I maintain a spreadsheet with all our frequent debtors and their recent search dates. When the portal is down, at least I know how current my last search was and can assess the risk of proceeding without a fresh search.

For immediate relief on your $2.8M deal, I'd recommend trying the Michigan Business Portal (https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us) as an alternative entry point - sometimes when the main UCC search portal is down, you can still access searches through the business entity lookup section. Also, consider reaching out to title companies in your area who might have direct API access to the database. We've had luck with First American and Old Republic when we're in a pinch. They can often run searches same-day even when the public portal is having issues. Just make sure to factor the additional cost into your closing expenses.

Update us when you get it resolved! I'm dealing with a similar registered UCC name matching problem and curious what ends up working for you.

I've been running into this registered UCC name matching issue more frequently lately too. One thing that's helped me is creating a simple spreadsheet to track the exact formatting differences I find between the SOS records and what borrowers provide. You'd be amazed how many times there are subtle differences in periods, commas, or even the order of words like "LLC" vs "L.L.C." that cause rejections. For your Mountain Peak situation, I'd recommend pulling both the original Articles AND any amendments from the state database, then doing a character-by-character comparison. Sometimes companies file amendments just to clean up punctuation and you might be looking at an outdated version. The $450K deal is definitely worth the extra verification time!