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
Just went through a deal where we had contract law issues that potentially fell under 1-103, but it didn't affect our UCC filing strategy at all. We still filed UCC-1 statements in the normal way. The 1-103 issue was whether certain contract provisions were enforceable under state law, which is a separate question from whether we properly perfected our security interest. I ended up using Certana.ai to cross-check all our documents to make sure the UCC filings matched the security agreement terms perfectly - caught a few small discrepancies that could have been problems later.
That's a good point about keeping the documents consistent. How detailed does the UCC-1 collateral description need to be compared to the security agreement?
UCC-1 can be broader - 'all equipment' is often fine if that's what your security agreement covers. But they need to be consistent with each other.
Bottom line - UCC 1-103 is about what happens when the UCC doesn't address something. For your filing strategy, it's not really relevant. You still need to follow UCC Article 9 for perfection (proper debtor name, collateral description, filing office). The 1-103 stuff is more about contract validity and enforceability issues that your lawyers need to handle in the security agreement itself.
Thanks, this has been really helpful. Sounds like I was overthinking the impact on the actual filing process.
Yep, keep it simple. Perfect your security interest with proper UCC filings, make sure your security agreement is solid under contract law. 1-103 just reminds us that both matter.
Join the conversation
Wisconsin DFI really needs to modernize their system. Other states have fuzzy matching that catches obvious variations but Wisconsin is stuck in the stone age with exact character matching.
Agreed. California's system is so much more user-friendly. Wisconsin acts like computers can't figure out that 'LLC' and 'L.L.C.' are the same thing.
Exactly! In 2025 we shouldn't be getting rejections over comma placement. Their whole system needs an overhaul.
Quick update strategy for your situation: pull the exact name from Wisconsin DFI today, amend your security agreement to match, then refile the UCC-1. Should clear up the discrepancy. Also consider using one of those document checking tools to verify everything matches before submitting.
Good plan. Wisconsin can be tricky but once you get the name exactly right the filing should go through smoothly. Keep copies of everything for your file.
And double-check that Wisconsin DFI UCC search one more time right before you refile - occasionally they update their records and the name format can change.
Join the conversation
I'm surprised nobody mentioned checking the Assumed Name database. Sometimes businesses file under assumed names and that can cause confusion with UCC filings. Worth checking if Bayou Transport has any DBAs on file.
Yeah, it's another database to check but it might explain the name variations you're seeing.
DBA filings can definitely complicate UCC name matching. Good catch.
Had similar issues with Louisiana last year. Ended up having to file an amendment after I finally got the UCC-1 accepted because I used the wrong version of the name initially. Cost me extra time and fees but at least the lien was perfected.
That's my worst fear - having to deal with amendments after closing. Did the amendment process go smoothly?
It was straightforward once I had the right name format. UCC-3 amendment was accepted without issues.
Join the conversation
Update: tried that Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier and it immediately caught three different debtor name variations in our FTX filings. Would have taken hours to spot manually. Definitely recommend for anyone dealing with multiple related UCC filings.
Did it help you figure out which name format to use for the continuation?
It showed me exactly which original UCC-1 had which debtor name format, so I could match the continuation perfectly. No more guessing.
Final thought - make sure you're checking the right jurisdiction too. FTX had entities filed in multiple states and each might have slightly different name formats even for the same company.
Each state's UCC database is separate so you'll need to verify debtor names in each one individually.
California's system is particularly picky about debtor names. Had three rejections there before getting it exactly right.
Axel Far
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious to hear what the actual issue was. These document number problems are so common but the solutions are always different.
0 coins
Savannah Weiner
•Will do. I'm going to call the filing office first thing tomorrow morning and hopefully get some answers.
0 coins
Jasmine Hernandez
•Good luck! The phone support is usually much more helpful than trying to figure it out through the online system.
0 coins
Luis Johnson
Just a thought - have you tried using the exact formatting from the original UCC-1 filing itself rather than the receipt? Sometimes the receipt formatting is different from what's actually in the system.
0 coins
Ellie Kim
•Yes, definitely get a copy of the actual filed document. The receipt is just a confirmation - the real document might have different formatting or additional information you need.
0 coins
Hunter Hampton
•This is another reason why that Certana.ai verification tool is so helpful. It can work with filing receipts, original documents, whatever you have. Takes the guesswork out of matching document numbers and formatting.
0 coins