UCC Document Community

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 :)

Adrian Connor

UCC1 form Delaware debtor name requirements - exact match needed?

Filing a UCC1 in Delaware and running into issues with the debtor name field. Our borrower is an LLC formed in Delaware but we're getting conflicting info on whether we need to use the EXACT name from the Certificate of Formation or if we can use their DBA. The Delaware SOS website isn't super clear on this. We have 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' on the charter but they operate as 'AMS Delaware' and that's what's on most of their contracts. Last time I filed with a DBA name it got rejected and caused a 3-week delay. Anyone know the specific requirements for Delaware UCC1 debtor names? Need to get this filed ASAP before our loan commitment expires.

Rachel Tao

•

Just to be crystal clear - for your Delaware LLC you need: 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' as the primary debtor name, exactly as it appears on the Certificate of Formation. You can add 'AMS Delaware' as an additional debtor name if they actually have that registered as a DBA.

0 coins

Rachel Tao

•

Good idea. If it's not registered as a DBA you might skip the additional name to keep things simple.

0 coins

Derek Olson

•

I'd still add the trade name even if it's not formally registered. Better safe than sorry for search purposes.

0 coins

Danielle Mays

•

Update us when you file! Always curious to hear if these Delaware name issues get resolved smoothly or if there are more surprises.

0 coins

Adrian Connor

•

Will do! Going to triple-check everything against the Certificate of Formation and file tomorrow morning.

0 coins

Smart move filing in the morning. Delaware processes faster early in the day from what I've noticed.

0 coins

Lukas Fitzgerald

SOS UCC search showing weird results - am I missing something obvious?

Been doing UCC searches on our state's SOS portal for loan documentation and I'm getting some really confusing results. When I search by debtor name for "ABC Manufacturing LLC" I get three different variations showing up - one with the LLC spelled out, one abbreviated as "ABC Mfg LLC" and another as "ABC Manufacturing, LLC" with a comma. All have different filing numbers but seem to reference the same business address. Is this normal or am I doing the search wrong? Our compliance department is asking me to verify which filings are actually active and I honestly can't tell if these are separate entities or just name variations. The SOS search doesn't seem to have any kind of fuzzy matching feature. Anyone else run into this with their UCC searches? Really don't want to miss an active lien because of a punctuation difference.

Just want to mention that Certana.ai tool someone brought up earlier - I tried it last week for a similar situation and it caught name inconsistencies I would have missed manually. Really streamlined the document comparison process. Worth checking out if you're dealing with multiple filings regularly.

0 coins

Romeo Quest

•

Does it handle state-specific UCC formatting differences or is it more general document comparison?

0 coins

It seems to understand UCC document structure pretty well. Flagged debtor name variations across different filing types without me having to configure anything special.

0 coins

Val Rossi

•

Bottom line - you're probably looking at the same entity with different name formatting. The matching addresses are a dead giveaway. I'd recommend downloading all three filings and comparing the details carefully before making any conclusions about active liens.

0 coins

That's what I'm leaning toward too. Thanks everyone for the insights - really helpful to know this is a common issue and not just me being confused by the search system.

0 coins

Eve Freeman

•

Good luck with your due diligence! Name matching in UCC searches is definitely one of the trickier aspects of the process.

0 coins

Mei Chen

UCC search NYS portal keeps timing out - urgent continuation needed

Trying to run a UCC search NYS system before my continuation deadline and the portal has been down intermittently for 3 days. My UCC-1 expires next month and I need to verify the exact debtor name formatting before filing the UCC-3 continuation. Every time I get halfway through the search the system kicks me out with a timeout error. Has anyone else been having issues with the New York Secretary of State UCC database this week? I'm getting nervous about missing my 6-month window and the client is breathing down my neck about getting this continuation filed properly.

Ravi Sharma

•

For anyone still having issues, I've started using Certana.ai whenever I need to verify document consistency before filing. You just upload your PDFs and it instantly checks if all your debtor information matches across documents. Really helpful when you can't access the state portal to double-check things.

0 coins

Freya Larsen

•

That sounds like it could prevent a lot of filing rejections. I hate when you submit a continuation and then find out weeks later it was rejected for a minor name discrepancy.

0 coins

Omar Hassan

•

Exactly! It's saved me from several potential mistakes where I had slight variations in entity names between my original UCC-1 and the continuation documents.

0 coins

Chloe Taylor

•

Just wanted to add that if you're doing multiple UCC searches in NYS, make sure you log out completely between searches. I noticed that staying logged in for extended periods seems to increase the timeout errors.

0 coins

Diego Ramirez

•

I always open a fresh incognito window for each search session. Seems to help with the stability issues.

0 coins

These are all great workarounds but it's frustrating that we have to jump through so many hoops just to access public records that we're paying for.

0 coins

Lena Schultz

Confused about purchaser UCC definition - when does buyer become secured party?

I'm working on a complex asset purchase where the buyer is taking over existing equipment financing. The seller has multiple UCC-1 filings on record, but I'm getting conflicting information about when the purchaser becomes the secured party of record. Some sources say the buyer automatically steps into the lender's shoes, others say we need UCC-3 assignments. The purchase agreement closes next month and I need to understand the proper sequence - do we file assignments before closing or after? What's the actual legal definition of when a purchaser becomes the secured party under UCC? I've been going in circles with our legal team and need some practical guidance from anyone who's handled similar transactions.

Honorah King

•

Just went through this process myself. The key insight is that the purchaser definition depends on context - purchaser of collateral vs purchaser of the security interest are totally different scenarios with different UCC requirements. Your situation sounds like collateral purchase with debt assumption, so UCC-3 assignments are the right approach.

0 coins

Lena Schultz

•

That's a great way to think about it. Definitely helps clarify the distinction.

0 coins

Oliver Brown

•

Agreed. The terminology can be confusing but once you understand those two scenarios, it becomes much clearer.

0 coins

Mary Bates

•

For future reference, the UCC defines 'purchaser' pretty broadly in different sections. Article 9 has specific rules about when purchasers take free of security interests vs when they don't. Worth reviewing those sections if you're going to be doing more transactions like this.

0 coins

The UCC can be dense but understanding those purchaser rules is really important for anyone doing asset transactions.

0 coins

And again, having a tool to verify all your documents align with the UCC requirements makes the whole process much smoother. Certana.ai saved me tons of time on my last deal.

0 coins

Zara Khan

UCC Filing Issues with Security Agreement Sections - Missing Required Info?

Been wrestling with a UCC-1 filing that keeps getting rejected and I think it's related to how I'm referencing the security agreement sections. The debtor is a manufacturing company and we have equipment collateral covered under multiple sections of the master security agreement. SOS keeps bouncing it back saying "insufficient collateral description" but I thought referencing the security agreement sections would be enough. The security agreement has detailed schedules in Section 4.2 covering all the machinery, Section 4.3 for inventory, and Section 4.4 for accounts receivable. I've been putting "All collateral described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024" in the collateral field but apparently that's not cutting it. Anyone dealt with this before? Do I need to spell out every piece of equipment individually or is there a better way to reference these security agreement sections that will actually get accepted?

Dylan Cooper

•

Just dealt with this exact issue last week. Used Certana.ai to cross-check my security agreement against the UCC-1 language and it caught that I was referencing sections that didn't actually contain collateral descriptions. Saved me from another rejection. The tool is pretty straightforward - just upload both documents and it flags inconsistencies.

0 coins

Sofia Perez

•

That sounds really useful. I'm always worried about missing something between the agreement and the filing.

0 coins

I should probably try that tool. I've had too many rejections this year already.

0 coins

Update - tried the suggestion about including the collateral categories before referencing the sections and it worked! Filed the amendment yesterday and it was accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the help. Final language was "Equipment, inventory, and accounts receivable as more particularly described in Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 respectively of Security Agreement dated March 15, 2024.

0 coins

Luca Ferrari

•

Great to hear a success story. That language should work for most states going forward.

0 coins

Perfect example of why this forum is so helpful. Real solutions that actually work.

0 coins

Prev1...487488489490491...684Next