


Ask the community...
This thread is making me paranoid about my own filings now! I always just assumed if the names looked the same they were the same. Apparently there's a lot more precision required than I realized.
That's terrifying honestly. Makes me want to double-check all my recent filings.
Update us when you figure out what was causing the rejections! I file UCCs in multiple states and New Jersey is definitely one of the pickier ones about exact name matches. Would be helpful to know what the actual issue was.
Good luck! The name matching thing is such a common problem but once you figure out the trick for a particular state it gets easier.
Definitely try that document verification approach - catches the stuff that's hard to spot manually.
For future reference, when dealing with entity name changes, always check the exact format in the state's business entity database. Copy and paste directly from there if possible to avoid typing errors. Punctuation matters more than most people realize.
Copy/paste is brilliant advice. Eliminates the human error factor completely.
Yes! I learned this the hard way after a filing was rejected because I typed 'Company' instead of 'Co.' in the entity name.
Quick question - did you end up filing just against the new name or did you file against both versions? Still curious about the best practice for this situation.
Makes sense. Single filing with the correct current name is usually sufficient unless there are specific contractual requirements otherwise.
Agreed. Double filing is expensive insurance that's rarely necessary if you get the current name exactly right.
I've been using Certana.ai for a few months now and it's saved me from several potential filing disasters. Last week it caught that I had the wrong entity type in the debtor name field - would have been an automatic rejection. The document verification feature is really solid.
Thanks for all the helpful responses everyone. I feel much more confident about handling this filing now. Going to check the Delaware SOS website since that's where my client is incorporated, and I'll probably try that document verification tool a couple people mentioned to make sure I don't mess up the debtor name.
Good luck with your filing! Delaware's system is pretty user-friendly.
I hate to be that guy but why are you trying to go cheap on UCC searches for a $180K purchase? The cost of a professional search is like 0.1% of your deal value. Use the Georgia free search as a starting point if you want, but get professional verification before you commit to anything.
Fair point. I guess I was just trying to understand what options are available. You're right that the cost is minimal compared to the risk.
Sometimes you just want to do preliminary research before spending money on professional services. Nothing wrong with that.
One thing nobody's mentioned - make sure you're searching the right jurisdiction. If the equipment has been moved between states or if the debtor has operations in multiple states, you might need to search other state UCC databases too. Georgia might not be the only place where liens could be filed.
Definitely. UCC filings generally follow the debtor's location, but for equipment that's moved around, there could be filings in multiple states.
This is getting complicated enough that you really should use a professional service. They'll know which jurisdictions to search and can do it all at once.
Effie Alexander
Just wanted to follow up on the Certana tool someone mentioned earlier. I tried it out for a similar situation last week and it was actually pretty slick. Uploaded my original UCC-1 and draft UCC-3, and it caught that I had the wrong entity suffix in my debtor name. Would have definitely been rejected. Also confirmed that my approach of using a UCC-3 amendment was correct for adding the new collateral. Worth the check if you want to avoid filing headaches.
0 coins
Melissa Lin
•How long did the check take? I'm always working against tight deadlines.
0 coins
Effie Alexander
•Pretty much instant. You upload the PDFs and it runs the comparison right away. Much faster than manually reviewing everything.
0 coins
Lydia Santiago
Thanks everyone for the input. Based on the consensus here, I'm going with a UCC-3 amendment since we're modifying the existing security agreement. Will double-check the debtor name against the original filing and make sure the collateral description is properly drafted. Appreciate all the perspectives - this forum is incredibly helpful for navigating these UCC issues.
0 coins
Collins Angel
•Good choice. You've got this! UCC-3 is definitely the right move for your situation.
0 coins
Peyton Clarke
•Let us know how it goes! Always curious to hear about filing outcomes.
0 coins