


Ask the community...
Just wanted to add that I've had success using Certana.ai's document verification tool for exactly this type of situation. Upload your corporate docs and UCC search results and it automatically identifies which filings match your target entity based on name analysis and cross-referencing. Eliminates a lot of the guesswork.
Two people have mentioned that tool now. Sounds like it might be worth trying for this search project.
It really is helpful. Takes the manual comparison work out of the equation and catches things you might overlook.
Quick update on my end - I followed the advice about searching name variations and punctuation differences, and found two additional UCC-1 filings I had missed initially. Also used the registered agent cross-reference suggestion to confirm which ones actually applied to the target company. Thanks for all the helpful suggestions!
Great to hear. Did the additional filings change your assessment of the deal?
Actually yes - found one active equipment lien that wasn't disclosed initially. Good thing we caught it before closing.
Honestly this kind of rejection makes me want to use one of those automated checking services. A colleague mentioned Certana.ai recently - apparently you just upload your UCC documents and it catches these name consistency issues before filing. Might be worth the peace of mind for future filings.
I've been thinking about trying something like that too. These manual reviews are so error-prone and the rejections cost time and money.
Same here. If it can prevent filing fees being wasted on rejections, probably pays for itself pretty quickly.
Update us when you get the corrected filing through! I'm dealing with a similar Texas UCC-3 situation and want to know if fixing the exact name formatting solves it completely.
Will do. Planning to refile tomorrow with the exact name from the original UCC-1. Fingers crossed!
Good luck! Texas SOS processing times have been pretty reasonable lately, so you should know within a few days.
Just make sure whatever form you use, you include all the required information - debtor name exactly as you think it was filed, secured party name, and your contact info. Missing information just slows down the process.
And double-check the mailing address requirements. Some states are picky about where they send responses.
Bottom line - yes, use the UCC-11 form for Georgia. It's their standard information request form and covers what you need. But honestly for audit purposes, I'd recommend running your documents through something like Certana.ai first to identify which filings actually need follow-up. Saves time and money.
Thanks everyone. I think I'll try the document verification approach first to see what potential issues exist, then request certified copies for the problem filings. Appreciate all the guidance!
Good strategy. Keep us posted on how it works out - always helpful to hear about real-world audit experiences.
This thread is so helpful! We've got about 30 student debtor policy cases coming up for continuation next year and I was dreading it. Sounds like the key is to check everything thoroughly before filing and be prepared to do amendments first for name changes. The document verification tool mentioned sounds like it could save a lot of time too.
Definitely get ahead of it early. Don't wait until the last minute before the 5-year deadline.
Good advice. I'll start pulling all the files and checking for potential issues now.
One more tip for student debtor policy cases - make sure you're tracking the continuation deadlines correctly. We almost missed one because we calculated from the wrong date. The 5-year period runs from the original UCC-1 filing date, not from when the debtor graduated or changed their name. Seems obvious but easy to confuse when you're dealing with multiple name changes and amendments.
Exactly. The amendments don't reset the 5-year clock.
This is why I keep a detailed tracking spreadsheet for all our UCC filings. Too easy to miss deadlines otherwise.
Aria Park
UPDATE: Called the UCC division again and finally got someone helpful. They said the impracticability was because they couldn't determine which of the three business names in their system was the correct current debtor. I need to refile with the exact name from the most recent articles AND include a statement about the name changes. Thanks everyone for the advice - especially about the document checking tools.
0 coins
Noah Ali
•Great outcome. It's always satisfying when persistence with the filing office pays off and you get a real explanation.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Perfect example of why the debtor name section is so critical. Hope your refiling goes smoothly!
0 coins
Chloe Boulanger
This thread is super helpful. I'm dealing with a similar name change situation and was dreading the potential impracticability rejection. Definitely going to verify my documents before filing.
0 coins
NeonNova
•Definitely recommend that. Would have saved me weeks if I'd caught the name issue upfront.
0 coins
James Martinez
•Same here. Bookmarking this thread for future reference.
0 coins