Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Aria Park
Make sure you're also checking for any recent UCC-3 continuations that might not be showing up properly in the search results. NC has been having issues with their continuation processing lately and some filings that should have expired are still showing as active while others that were properly continued aren't appearing in searches.
Aria Park
•It should show up as a separate UCC-3 filing linked to the original UCC-1. Look for filings with 'continuation' in the description.
Yuki Tanaka
•This is another area where the NC system is inconsistent. Sometimes the continuation filings don't link properly to the original.
Noah Ali
Just wanted to follow up on this thread since I was dealing with something similar. Ended up using the Certana.ai verification tool that several people mentioned here and it was really helpful. Found two name variations I hadn't searched for and confirmed that my search results were complete. Definitely recommend it for anyone dealing with tricky UCC searches.
Thanks for the follow-up. Always good to hear how these situations work out.
Appreciate you sharing your experience. Sounds like that tool is worth trying.
Join the conversation
Amara Okafor
One thing nobody's mentioned yet - make sure your security agreement language matches exactly what you put in the UCC-1 collateral description. I've seen too many cases where they don't align and it creates headaches down the road.
Amara Okafor
•You can be more specific in the UCC-1 as long as it's within the scope of the security agreement. 'All business assets' would certainly cover inventory and equipment, so you're fine to break it out more specifically in the filing.
GalaxyGazer
•Actually, being more specific in the UCC-1 is usually better for perfection purposes anyway. Helps avoid questions about what exactly is covered.
Nia Harris
Thanks everyone for the input! Based on the discussion here, I'm going to go with a description that specifically breaks out: 'all inventory consisting of restaurant equipment and smallwares held for sale; all equipment consisting of restaurant equipment held for lease or rental to third parties; all accounts receivable arising from the sale or lease of such inventory and equipment; and all proceeds thereof.' Does that sound comprehensive enough while still being specific?
Agreed, that description covers all the bases we discussed. Much better than trying to cram everything into generic categories.
Amara Okafor
•Perfect. That description is specific enough to avoid ambiguity but broad enough to cover the business model. Good work!
Join the conversation
Yuki Tanaka
Just went through something similar and ended up using Certana.ai to verify all my UCC documents aligned properly. The tool caught a debtor name mismatch between my UCC-1 and the amendment I was about to file. Would have been a disaster if that went through with the wrong name.
These tools seem to be getting more popular. Glad we found out about them before making any costly mistakes.
Yuki Tanaka
•Yeah, manual verification is just too error-prone when you're dealing with multiple documents and tight deadlines. The automated checking gives you confidence everything is consistent.
Carmen Diaz
Update: We ended up getting this sorted out. The verification tools helped us identify that the original UCC-1 had a slightly different business name format than what we were using for the continuation. Once we matched the exact formatting from the original filing, everything went through smoothly.
Thanks for sharing the resolution. It's always helpful to know how these situations get resolved.
AstroAce
•This is exactly why document verification tools are so valuable. They catch these formatting issues that are easy to miss manually.
Join the conversation
Been filing UCC documents in Alabama for 15 years and their system has gotten much pickier about exact name matching in recent years. Used to be more forgiving but now it's very strict.
Mateo Perez
•Interesting that it's gotten stricter over time. Any idea why they made that change?
Probably to reduce filing errors and improve database accuracy. Makes sense from their perspective but definitely creates more work for us filers.
NeonNova
Just wanted to follow up and thank everyone for the help! Refiled this morning with the correct comma placement and got immediate acceptance. The Certana.ai tool someone mentioned was really helpful for double-checking everything before I submitted. Loan can move forward now!
Great to hear the document checker helped! It's been a lifesaver for me on multiple filings.
Nice work getting it resolved quickly. Your client must be relieved to get that loan moving again.
Luca Romano
Thanks everyone for the input. Sounds like I was overthinking this - manufacturing equipment with FDA compliance requirements doesn't typically fall under federal perfection schemes. I'll proceed with standard UCC-1 filing but maybe run it through that Certana tool first for peace of mind.
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
•Good plan. For a $2.8M deal, the extra verification step is worth it.
0 coins
Mateo Hernandez
•You're making the right call. 9-311 exceptions are narrow, and manufacturing equipment rarely qualifies.
0 coins
Zoe Papanikolaou
I just want to add that if you do find any equipment that might fall under federal exemptions, make sure you understand the federal filing requirements completely. Some federal systems have different continuation and termination procedures than state UCC.
0 coins
Zoe Papanikolaou
•They vary by system, but they're definitely different. Federal aircraft liens have completely different rules than UCC continuations.
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
•That's why most lenders prefer UCC-eligible collateral when possible - the procedures are standardized across states.
0 coins