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
Zainab Ahmed
Been doing UCC filings for 15 years and name consistency issues are still the #1 cause of problems I see. The good news is that once you establish a systematic approach to verifying debtor names, it becomes second nature. Always start with the state business entity database, cross-reference with your loan documents, and when in doubt, get written confirmation from the debtor about their exact legal name.
15 years! You must have seen every possible name variation problem by now. Any other common mistakes you'd warn people about?
Zainab Ahmed
•Oh definitely - watch out for entities that have changed their name since the security agreement was signed. Always check for amendments to the articles of incorporation. And don't assume the name on the loan documents is correct - I've seen plenty of errors there too.
NebulaNomad
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation on a equipment financing deal and want to see how your approach works out. The name consistency issue seems to be becoming more common as businesses operate under multiple variations of their names.
Yes please update! These real-world examples are so much more helpful than just reading the UCC code provisions.
NebulaNomad
•Agreed - practical experience beats theoretical knowledge every time when it comes to UCC filings.
Join the conversation
Update us on what happens! I'm dealing with a similar situation with Chase and curious to see what approach works best. This seems to be becoming more common unfortunately.
Omar Hassan
•Yeah please follow up. I'm sure other people will run into this same problem.
One more suggestion - if you're working with a new lender for the refinancing, they might be able to help put pressure on the old lender. They deal with this stuff all the time and probably have better contacts than you do. Worth asking your loan officer if they can make some calls on your behalf.
Plus lender to lender communication might get taken more seriously than borrower complaints.
My commercial banker at First National actually did this for me once. Called the old lender directly and got it sorted out same day.
Join the conversation
Had a client insist on UCC 1-308 language and we spent weeks going back and forth with the lender and filing office. Finally used one of those document checking services to verify everything was consistent when we separated the reservation language into the loan docs and kept the UCC-1 standard. Probably could have saved time by doing that verification upfront.
Which document checking service did you use? The verification step sounds like it could prevent a lot of headaches.
Certana.ai - you upload your PDFs and it instantly checks for consistency between loan documents and UCC filings. Catches name mismatches, collateral discrepancies, that sort of thing.
Look, I understand wanting to protect your rights, but UCC 1-308 on a financing statement is like putting a disclaimer on a phone book listing. The UCC-1 doesn't create obligations, it just provides notice. Your real protections need to be in the operative loan documents where the actual terms are negotiated.
Exactly. That's where the rubber meets the road in terms of your actual rights and obligations under the credit facility.
This is the best advice in the thread. Focus on substantive contract terms, not symbolic reservation language on notice filings.
Join the conversation
Dmitry Popov
The worst part about these UCC fee increases is they never seem to improve the actual filing experience. Portal still crashes during busy periods and search functions are still terrible.
So true! You'd think higher fees would mean better service but mostly it just means higher costs.
Miguel Ortiz
•I've had three portal timeouts this week alone. System clearly needs the revenue but isn't spending it on infrastructure.
Just wanted to follow up and say thanks for the heads up everyone. I checked our other states and found two more that increased fees recently. Would have been caught off guard otherwise. Also going to look into that Certana tool someone mentioned for catching these changes earlier.
Definitely try the Certana document checker. It's saved me from several filing errors beyond just fee issues.
Yara Haddad
•Same experience here. The UCC verification caught a debtor name mismatch that would have voided our security interest. Worth checking out.
Ravi Malhotra
For what it's worth, I tried that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier and it's actually pretty slick. Uploaded my charter doc and UCC draft and it highlighted exactly where the punctuation didn't match. Saved me from a potential filing rejection.
0 coins
Yara Sayegh
•Glad it worked for you too! It's become part of my standard workflow for any UCC filing now.
0 coins
Dmitry Sokolov
•Might have to check that out. Sounds like it could prevent exactly the kind of issue I'm worried about.
0 coins
Freya Christensen
Bottom line - when in doubt, use the exact name from the most recent state filing. NY doesn't mess around with UCC rejections and you don't want to explain to your client why their security interest might not be perfected because of a punctuation mark.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•This is why I always pull fresh entity docs right before filing, even if I have older versions. Things change.
0 coins
Dmitry Sokolov
•Thanks everyone - consensus seems clear. Going with the charter name exactly as filed with NY. Appreciate all the practical advice!
0 coins