UCC Document Community

The 9-606 notice timing sounds fine, but I'd be more concerned about the content of your notice. Did you include the specific UCC 9-614 required elements? Missing required content can be more problematic than timing issues.

As someone who's handled multiple UCC 9-606 challenges, your 12-day notice period with certified mail delivery should generally satisfy the "reasonable notification" requirement under Ohio law. However, the authorization issue you mentioned is concerning - if the debtor can prove the person who signed wasn't authorized to receive legal notices, that could potentially invalidate your notice regardless of timing. I'd recommend pulling the debtor's corporate records from the Ohio Secretary of State to identify registered agents or officers, then consider re-serving notice to eliminate any service challenges before pursuing the $180K deficiency. The cost of proper re-notice is minimal compared to the risk of losing collection rights on a procedural issue.

Document everything! Send them a written objection letter immediately citing UCC 9-611's reasonable notice requirement. For specialized manufacturing equipment worth $180k, 8 days is clearly insufficient - courts have consistently held that high-value specialized collateral requires adequate time to reach appropriate buyers. Include in your letter that you're exploring refinancing options and need reasonable time per Article 9 standards. Also request they provide proof they notified all required parties including any junior lienholders. This creates a paper trail if you need to challenge the sale in court later.

Based on everything discussed here, you have multiple strong grounds to challenge this timeline. With specialized manufacturing equipment worth $180k and only being behind $12k, their 8-day notice is almost certainly insufficient under UCC 9-611's "reasonable notice" standard. I'd recommend taking action on several fronts immediately: 1) Send that written objection letter citing insufficient notice for high-value specialized collateral, 2) Verify they properly notified your junior lienholder, 3) Review your original security agreement for any contractual notice periods that exceed UCC minimums, and 4) Consider using a service like the document verification tool Anna mentioned to check for any UCC filing inconsistencies. Even if you can't cure the default right away, challenging the notice period buys you time to explore refinancing or find alternative buyers who might pay closer to fair market value. Don't let them rush this - your equipment is worth far more than your debt.

One thing I learned the hard way - always search both the company's current legal name AND any former names if they've changed. Older filings might be under the old name and won't show up in searches of the current name.

One more tip that hasn't been mentioned - if the target company has any subsidiaries or related entities, make sure you're searching for UCC filings against those as well. Sometimes parent companies guarantee subsidiary debt or subsidiaries cross-guarantee each other's obligations. I've seen deals where the main entity looked clean but a subsidiary had significant liens that ultimately affected the whole acquisition. Get a complete corporate family tree and search each entity individually.

Just want to add that this isn't unique to D&B - I've seen similar issues with other commercial databases too. The fundamental problem is that they're trying to aggregate data from 50+ different state systems that all work differently. Some states have great APIs, others are still basically manual entry. Until there's better standardization across state filing systems, these discrepancies are going to keep happening.

This thread perfectly captures why I've moved away from relying on D&B for UCC searches altogether. We now use a two-tier approach: start with our state databases directly for primary jurisdictions, then use D&B only as a backup to catch anything we might have missed in secondary states. The time investment upfront is worth it to avoid the headaches later. One tip I'd add - if you're seeing consistent discrepancies with a particular borrower, check if they've had any recent name changes or corporate restructuring. D&B sometimes struggles to properly link filings across entity name variations, especially when there are mergers or acquisitions involved.

Really appreciate everyone sharing their experiences here. Makes me feel less stupid for falling for this scam. Going forward I'm only using services that provide direct links to the actual state filing records so I can verify everything myself.

This is such an important warning for everyone in our community. I've been doing UCC searches for years and I'm seeing more of these scam operations pop up every month. One thing I always tell people is to look for red flags like generic email addresses (gmail, yahoo, etc.) instead of professional domains, and websites that don't clearly state their physical business address. Also, legitimate UCC search providers will usually offer to walk you through their methodology and explain where they source their data from. If a company gets evasive about their process or won't provide references from other clients, that's a huge warning sign. Thanks for sharing your experience - it'll definitely help others avoid the same trap.