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
Omitted.
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 Operation.
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 and Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
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.
PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2) THE FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTE INFORMATION IS BEING PROVIDED IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-K
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider Financial Information.
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any enhancement or other support for the certificates 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 for the certificates as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.
On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the “Complaint”). In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to (i) enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default purportedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases (collectively, the “Additional Complaints”) alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the same court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases have been consolidated before the same judge. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Complaint; the District Court also allowed Plaintiffs to file amended complaints if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo 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 any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.
On February 23, 2016, a certificateholder of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2007-CIBC18 (the “CIBC18 Trust”), filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, against KeyBank National Association and Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (collectively, the “CIBC18 Servicers”). The suit was filed derivatively on behalf of the CIBC18 Trust. The action was brought in connection with the CIBC18 Servicers’ determination of the fair value of a loan, secured by the Bryant Park Hotel in New York City, held by the CIBC18 Trust and sold to an assignee of the CIBC18 Trust’s directing certificateholder, pursuant to an exercise of the fair value option. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the action or the possible impact of the litigation on the CIBC18 Servicers. Both CIBC18 Servicers deny liability, believe that they performed their obligations in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement applicable to the CIBC18 Trust, and intend to contest the claims asserted against them.
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 with the most substantial case being: 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 794 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.). 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.
There can be no assurance 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 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
The reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance are attached hereto under Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
a) Exhibits
4.1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012, between Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, certificate registrar and authenticating agent (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on October 18, 2012 under SEC File No. 333-167764-03 and incorporated by reference herein).
b) See Item (a) above.
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.
Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.
(Depositor)
EXHIBIT INDEX
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
4.1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2012, between Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as depositor, Bank of America, National Association, as master servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as special servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as trust advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as custodian, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, certificate administrator, certificate registrar and authenticating agent (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on October 18, 2012 under SEC File No. 333-167764-03 and incorporated by reference herein).