Item 1. Business.
Omitted.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Omitted.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties.
Omitted.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Omitted.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Omitted.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Omitted.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Omitted.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Omitted.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Omitted.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Omitted.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Omitted.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
PART III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Omitted.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Omitted.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Omitted.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Omitted.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
Omitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.
The Park Place Mall Mortgage Loan (Control Number 1 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on October 11, 2011 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5)) constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB as disclosed in the prospectus supplement. In accordance with Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the most recent unaudited net operating income of the significant obligor was $20,584,986 for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2018.
The 1551 Broadway Mortgage Loan (Control Number 2 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on October 11, 2011 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5)) constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB as disclosed in the prospectus supplement. In accordance with Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the most recent unaudited net operating income of the significant obligor was $19,255,333 for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2018.
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., the guarantor of the lease of the sole tenant at the mortgaged property that secures the 1551 Broadway Mortgage Loan (Control Number 2 on Annex A to the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on October 11, 2011 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5)), constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(1) of Regulation AB. Set forth in the table below is the information required under Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB with respect to such significant obligor which was previously reported on such significant obligor’s Form 10-K filed on March 14, 2019, Accession Number 0001564590-19-007828 (the “Significant Obligor Filing”):
(1) Except for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2018, which includes 53 weeks, all fiscal years presented include 52 weeks.
(2) The comparable sales increase for Fiscal 2018 ended February 2, 2019 is compared to the corresponding 52-week period in Fiscal 2017. The comparable sales increase for Fiscal 2017 ended February 3, 2018 is compared to the corresponding 53-week period in Fiscal 2016. Additionally, comparable sales for all periods include AEO Direct sales.
(3) Total net revenue per average square foot is calculated using retail store sales for the year divided by the straight average of the beginning and ending square footage for the year.
(4) Average return on stockholders’ equity is calculated by using the annual reported net income divided by the straight average of the beginning and ending stockholders’ equity balances from the consolidated balance sheets.
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider Financial Information.
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.
Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.
The registrant knows of no material pending legal proceeding involving the trust or any party related to the trust, other than routine litigation incidental to the duties of those respective parties, and the following, with respect to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator and U.S. Bank National Association, as custodian:
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain RMBS trusts.
On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed an action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court alleging that DBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for 544 private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed the case from New York State Supreme Court and refiled two separate cases, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock California Case”). Pursuant to a settlement among the parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 6, 2018 and the BlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 11, 2019.
On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issue. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of New York’s Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG (see description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 50 of the trusts at issue. On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for 1 of the 50 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 49 trusts at issue. Commerzbank’s second amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On January 29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017, IKB voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims as to seven trusts. As of March 1, 2019, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.
It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties under the related servicing agreement for this transaction.
In the ordinary course of business, Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions. Certain of these Citibank as trustee-related matters are disclosed herein.
On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “Trust Indenture Act”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on Citibank’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the 48 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw this action. On the same day, a smaller subset of similar plaintiff investors in 27 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court. In January 2015, the court closed plaintiffs’ original state court action. On September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. On April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 4, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the clerk to close the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on August 3, 2018. Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018. Plaintiffs’ filed their reply on November 16, 2018.
On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee. This case includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action, and one additional trust. The investors assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of New York’s Streit Act (the “Streit Act”). Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. On June 27, 2017, the state court issued a decision, dismissing the Event of Default claims, mortgage-file-related claims, the fiduciary duty claims, and the conflict of interest claims. The decision sustained certain breach of contract claims including the claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties, a claim related to robo-signing, and the implied covenant of good faith claim. Citibank appealed the lower court’s decision, and on January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the claims related to robo-signing and the implied covenant of good faith, but allowed plaintiffs’ claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties to proceed.
On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for a failed financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York. This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee. FDIC asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act. Citibank jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A., entities that have also been
sued by FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and these cases have all been consolidated in front of Judge Carter. On September 30, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for reargument or relief from judgment from the Court’s dismissal order. On July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the motion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action. He denied reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave to amend the complaint by October 9, 2017. The FDIC subsequently requested an extension of time to file its amended complaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8, 2017. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 13, 2018. On April 18, 2018, plaintiff filed its opposition. Defendants filed their joint reply on May 3, 2018.
There can be no assurances as to the outcome of litigation or the possible impact of litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Citibank denies liability and continues to vigorously defend against these litigations. Furthermore, neither the above-disclosed litigations nor any other pending legal proceeding involving Citibank will materially affect Citibank’s ability to perform its duties under the related servicing agreement for this CMBS transaction.
Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee’s purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.
Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described above. Previously, U.S. Bank disclosed that the most substantial case was: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 770 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the “BlackRock cases”). U.S. Bank has entered into a settlement agreement that will resolve the BlackRock cases following approval of the dismissals by the applicable court. Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.
U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in. good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.
Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
The information regarding this Item has been previously provided in a prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on October 11, 2011 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5).
Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
The reports on assessments of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance with respect to the mortgage loans are attached hereto under Item 15
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
(1) Not applicable
(2) Not applicable
(3) See below
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2011, by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Torchlight Loan Services, LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 11, 2011 under Commission File No. 333-171508-01 and incorporated by reference herein).
10.1 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2011, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 11, 2011 under Commission File No. 333-171508-01 and incorporated by reference herein).
10.2 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2011, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 11, 2011 under Commission File No. 333-171508-01 and incorporated by reference herein).
Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.
Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.
33.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
33.2 LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer
33.3 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)
33.4 Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
33.5 U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian
33.6 Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor
33.7 CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant
33.8 National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant
Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.
34.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
34.2 LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer
34.3 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)
34.4 Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
34.5 U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian
34.6 Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor
34.7 CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant
34.8 National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant
Servicer compliance statements.
35.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
35.2 LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer
35.3 Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
(b) The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above and in the Exhibit Index that immediately follows the signature page hereof.
(c) Not Applicable.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
(Depositor)
/s/ Leah Nivison
Leah Nivison, Chief Executive Officer
(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Date: March 25, 2019