UCC Document Community

This situation is exactly why I started using automated document verification. Upload your search results and loan docs to Certana.ai and it'll flag any inconsistencies between what you're seeing in Oregon's system and what should be reflected based on the actual filing documents.

Been there! Oregon's search results can lag behind actual filings by several days. If you need immediate confirmation, request certified copies of both the original UCC-1 and the UCC-3 termination.

Just went through something similar last month. Had 3 UCC-3 amendments with slightly different debtor names and spent hours trying to figure out if they were all valid. Turns out the secured party had been sloppy with their filings and 2 of the 3 amendments were technically defective due to name mismatches. We ended up requiring new UCC-1 filings before closing. Better safe than sorry when it comes to perfected security interests.

The relationship between amendments and the original filing should be clear from the filing numbers. Each UCC-3 should reference the specific filing number of the UCC-1 it's amending. If the filing number references don't match up properly, that's a red flag. Also, check if any of the amendments are actually terminations rather than true amendments - sometimes search reports categorize all UCC-3 filings together even though they serve different purposes.

One thing to watch out for is if your borrower is a subsidiary or has parent companies - sometimes the actual debtor entity is different from who you think you're lending to. Make sure you're filing against the right legal entity that actually owns the collateral.

Update: I pulled fresh organizational documents and you were all right - the legal entity name was different from what I had been using. Refiled with the correct charter name and it was accepted within 24 hours. Added the DBA information in the additional details section for search purposes. Thanks for the guidance - this could have been a real problem if we'd left the wrong name on file.

Been there! Security agreement law requires the UCC-1 to give sufficient notice of the collateral, and generic descriptions don't always cut it anymore. The good news is once you refile with better collateral language, it should go through fine. Just make sure to copy the specific equipment types from your security agreement.

One more vote for being more specific with collateral descriptions. Security agreement law is moving toward requiring better notice to other creditors, so the days of super generic descriptions are probably over. Better to be overly detailed than too vague.

Just to add another perspective - you might want to consult with a Colorado attorney who specializes in secured transactions if the loan amount is substantial. The cost of legal advice is probably much less than the potential loss if your security interest lapses. Some of these UCC technicalities can have serious consequences.

Update request - please let us know how this turns out! I'm sure others will face similar issues and it would be helpful to know what approach actually works with Colorado's system.