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
Logan Scott
One more thing to check - make sure the LLC is actually in good standing. If they're administratively dissolved or suspended, that might cause the system to reject the filing even if the name is correct.
Chloe Green
•Smart to double-check that. I've seen filings rejected for entities that looked active but had compliance issues.
Lucas Adams
•Arkansas is usually pretty good about updating their business database quickly, so if the certificate is recent you should be fine on that front.
Harper Hill
Just went through something similar and ended up using Certana's verification tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded my UCC-1 and the LLC's articles and it immediately flagged that I had the wrong entity ID number, which I never would have caught manually. The name was actually correct but the entity number was throwing off their system matching. Worth trying before you submit again.
Harper Hill
•It's not required but sometimes helps with the name matching. Check your UCC-1 form to see if there's a field for it.
Caden Nguyen
•Arkansas UCC-1 does have an optional entity ID field. If you include it, make sure it matches exactly what's in their business database.
Join the conversation
Ravi Sharma
This whole thread is making me paranoid about my own filings. I always assumed if the SOS portal accepted the UCC then the debtor name was fine. Apparently that's not necessarily true?
Ravi Sharma
•Well that's terrifying. How many of my filings might have name issues I don't even know about?
Paolo Ricci
•This is exactly why document verification tools exist - to catch these issues before they become problems. Better to find out now than during a foreclosure proceeding.
Update us on what you decide to do. I'm curious whether you go with the amendment approach or decide to refile entirely. Either way, this is a good reminder for all of us to be more careful with debtor name verification upfront.
Will definitely post an update. Leaning toward the UCC-3 amendment to add the charter name while keeping the original filing active.
That's probably your safest bet. Covers all your bases without losing priority.
Join the conversation
Pro tip: download a copy of every original UCC-1 before you start preparing terminations. I keep them in a folder labeled by debtor name so I can reference the exact formatting. Also helps if you need to pull filing dates or other details later.
Smart organization system. I should probably get better about record keeping like this.
It takes a little extra time upfront but saves hours later when you're doing terminations or continuations.
Just wanted to follow up on this thread since it helped me with a similar issue. Used the document verification approach and got all 12 of my terminations accepted on first try. The key really is getting those debtor names exactly right. Thanks everyone!
Love seeing success stories. This thread turned out to be really helpful for a lot of people it seems.
StarSeeker
•Glad the document checker worked out for you too. It's become my go-to tool for any UCC filings now.
Join the conversation
PixelPioneer
Quick question - are you filing the UCC-1 directly or through your bank? Sometimes banks have specific formatting requirements that differ from the state's exact match rules.
CyberSamurai
•Filing directly through Kentucky's online portal. Bank just provided the signed UCC-1 form.
That's good - at least you have control over the formatting. When banks file for you, sometimes they use their own templates that cause issues.
Paolo Rizzo
UPDATE: Called Kentucky SOS this morning and they confirmed it was a punctuation issue - they wanted 'Mountain Valley Equipment, LLC' with the comma. Refiled and got accepted within 2 hours. Thanks for all the advice!
Mei Liu
•Told you it was probably punctuation! At least now you know for future filings.
Great outcome. I'm definitely going to start being more careful about exact name formatting after reading this thread.
Teresa Boyd
The whole 9-311 exemption thing makes me nervous every time it comes up. Even when I think I understand it, there's always some nuance or exception that makes me second-guess everything. At least with your situation it sounds pretty straightforward - manufacturing equipment should be normal UCC-1 filing territory.
0 coins
Landon Morgan
•The nervousness is totally justified - getting 9-311 wrong can be expensive. But once you understand the basic framework, most cases are clearer than they initially appear.
0 coins
Abigail Patel
•Thanks everyone for the input. Feeling much more confident that our UCC-1 filing was appropriate. Will still get our attorney to confirm, but this discussion really helped clarify the key issues.
0 coins
Monique Byrd
Just want to echo what others have said - your equipment sounds like standard UCC-1 territory. The 9-311 exemption for aircraft applies to actual aircraft and aircraft engines, not manufacturing equipment used in aviation industry. You should be fine with your existing filing, but getting confirmation never hurts when there's this much money involved.
0 coins
Nolan Carter
•Agreed. Better safe than sorry on 9-311 issues, but this seems like a pretty clear case for state UCC filing.
0 coins