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
This thread is making me nervous about my own Colorado filings. Going to double-check everything now to make sure our UCC search reports are actually complete.
Smart move. Better to be paranoid about lien searches than miss something important.
Exactly. Missing a prior lien because of search system problems could be catastrophic for a secured lender.
For what it's worth, I ended up calling Colorado SOS UCC department at 303-894-2200 and they were able to confirm my filing over the phone while their search system was acting up. Might be worth trying if you need immediate verification.
Good idea. Sometimes the old-fashioned phone call is more reliable than their online systems.
Just make sure to get the name and confirmation number of whoever you speak with for your records.
Join the conversation
Just went through UCC authorization review with our legal team last month. They confirmed that security agreement authorization is sufficient as long as it's clear and the debtor actually signed it. Sounds like you have both covered.
That's very helpful confirmation. Did your legal team recommend any specific language for future security agreements?
They suggested being very explicit about UCC filing rights but said our current language was already adequate.
For what it's worth, I've never seen a court invalidate a UCC filing over authorization issues when there was a properly signed security agreement with filing rights language. The debtor's attorney is probably just creating noise to improve their negotiating position.
Thanks for that perspective. It's good to know this isn't typically a winning argument for debtors in court.
Courts are generally protective of secured creditor rights when the documentation is proper. Don't let intimidation tactics work.
Join the conversation
This reminds me of when I was trying to file a UCC-3 continuation in Iowa and kept getting rejections. Turned out I was using the wrong filing number format - they wanted the full number including the year prefix. Maybe check if you're using any reference numbers or filing codes incorrectly?
This is an initial UCC-1 so there shouldn't be any reference numbers needed. But good to know about the filing number format for future amendments.
Right, for UCC-1s you wouldn't need that. But Iowa is just really particular about formatting in general. Even small details can cause rejections.
Final thought - try calling Iowa SOS UCC division directly at their dedicated line. I know it's a pain to wait on hold but they can often spot the issue immediately when they review your filing details over the phone. Much faster than the back-and-forth rejection process.
Good plan. Hope you get it sorted out soon - financing deadlines are stressful enough without portal problems adding to it.
Keep us posted on what ends up working! Always good to know what fixes Iowa filing issues for future reference.
Join the conversation
Been there! Last time I had this problem I ended up using that Certana verification tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded the company's articles of incorporation and a few old contracts that had name variations, and it flagged some potential matches I would have missed. Really took the guesswork out of whether I was being thorough enough with the name variations.
How does the document upload process work? Do you just scan in whatever corporate documents you have?
Yeah, you can upload PDFs of any documents that contain the company names - charter docs, old loan agreements, whatever you have. It extracts all the name variations and cross-checks them. Pretty straightforward.
Don't forget to check for any federal tax liens or state tax liens too while you're at it. Those databases sometimes have different name entries that could give you clues about variations the company has used over the years.
Good point - I was so focused on UCC filings I hadn't thought about using tax lien searches as a way to discover name variations.
Exactly, plus you want to know about those liens anyway for your due diligence. Two birds with one stone.
Grace Johnson
One more thing to consider - if your supporting obligations include things like accounts receivable from maintenance contracts or insurance proceeds, those might need separate treatment as proceeds rather than supporting obligations. The classification can affect perfection requirements.
0 coins
Grace Johnson
•Insurance proceeds are typically covered under proceeds provisions rather than supporting obligations. Most standard UCC filings include proceeds language that would cover insurance payments automatically.
0 coins
Lauren Johnson
•Yes, proceeds are usually covered separately. Your UCC should have language like 'together with all proceeds, products, and accessions thereof' which would pick up insurance money.
0 coins
Jayden Reed
Thanks everyone for this discussion. I feel much more confident about handling supporting obligations in my UCC filings now. Going to revise my standard forms to be more explicit about these types of obligations.
0 coins
Caleb Stone
•Glad this was helpful! If you're revising your standard forms, definitely consider using a document verification tool like Certana.ai to double-check that your new language properly aligns with your security agreements. It's saved me from several potential perfection gaps.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•Great suggestion. I'm definitely going to look into that verification tool before I file this UCC. Better to catch any issues upfront than deal with problems later.
0 coins