Form 10-K CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL For: Dec 31
Tweet
Share
E-mail
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
☒ |
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022
or
☐ |
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
333-207132-09
(Commission File Number of issuing entity)
0001690255
(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P6
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
333-207132
(Commission File Number of depositor)
0001258361
(Central Index Key Number of depositor)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)
Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.
(Central Index Key Number: 0001541001)
Barclays Bank PLC
(Central Index Key Number: 0000312070)
Starwood Mortgage Funding V LLC
(Central Index Key Number: 0001682509)
Macquarie US Trading LLC d/b/a Principal Commercial Capital
(Central Index Key Number: 0001634437)
Société Générale
(Central Index Key Number: 0001238163)
(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
|
|
81-4698681 |
|
|
81-4709937 |
New York |
|
81-6985023 |
(State or other jurisdiction of organization of the issuing entity) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
c/o Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street Trading, 4th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)
(212) 816-5614
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class |
Trading Symbol(s) |
Name of each exchange on which |
None |
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. ☒ Yes ☐ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).
Not Applicable
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer |
|
☐ |
|
|
Accelerated filer |
|
☐ |
|
|
|
|
||||
Non-accelerated filer |
|
☒ |
|
|
Smaller reporting company |
|
☐ |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
Emerging growth company |
|
☐ |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). ☐ Yes ☒ No
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
Not Applicable
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.
Not Applicable
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Not Applicable
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document is incorporated: (1) Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or information statement; and (3) Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).
Not Applicable
EXPLANATORY NOTES
1 The 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan, which represented approximately 8.2% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CD 2016-CD2 PSA.
2 The 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan, which represented approximately 6.3% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA.
3 The Potomac Mills mortgage loan, which represented approximately 4.0% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Potomac Mills mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA. Effective as of March 4, 2021, AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC was terminated as the Potomac Mills special servicer under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA and Situs Holdings, LLC has been appointed to act as successor Potomac Mills special servicer under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, as disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the registrant on March 4, 2021 under Commission File No. 333-207132-09.
4 The Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.8% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA.
5 The Hyatt Regency Jersey City mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.8% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Hyatt Regency Jersey City mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CGCMT 2016-P5 PSA.
6 The Easton Town Center mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.5% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Easton Town Center mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA. Effective as of March 11, 2021, AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC was terminated as the special servicer under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA and Situs Holdings, LLC has been appointed to act as successor special servicer under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA, as disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the registrant on March 11, 2021 under Commission File No. 333-207132-09.
7 The Quantum Park mortgage loan, which represented approximately 5.5% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Quantum Park mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA.
8 Pursuant to Instruction 3 to Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor for the Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan under the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA are not included in this report on Form 10-K because Pentalpha Surveillance LLC performed activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to 5% or less of the pool assets of the issuing entity. This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of (i) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA, the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA and the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA and (ii) Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator under the CGCMT 2016-P5 PSA, because the certificate administrator under each such pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement does not perform any activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.
9 This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statements of (i) KeyBank National Association, as special servicer for the 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, (ii) Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer for the 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan under the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, (iii) Situs Holdings, LLC, as Potomac Mills special servicer for the Potomac Mills mortgage loan under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, and (iv) Situs Holdings, LLC, as special servicer for the Easton Town Center mortgage loan under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA, because each of KeyBank National Association, Rialto
4
Capital Advisors, LLC, and Situs Holdings, LLC is an unaffiliated party that services less than 10% of the pool assets of the issuing entity, and therefore is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB. This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statements of (i) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA, the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA and the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA and (ii) Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator under the CGCMT 2016-P5 PSA, because the certificate administrator under each such pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.
PART I
Item 1. Business.
Omitted.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Omitted.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2. Properties.
Omitted.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Omitted.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Omitted.
Item 6. [Reserved]
Omitted.
5
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Omitted.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Omitted.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Omitted.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Omitted.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Omitted.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.
Not applicable.
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Omitted.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Omitted.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Omitted.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Omitted.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
Omitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB
No mortgage loan in the pool assets for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P6 constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB.
Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB
6
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB
Disclosure from Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee:
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 residential mortgage-backed securities (“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 October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice. On March 10, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with respect to the court’s orders on the motions to dismiss and for 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 February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. Discovery is ongoing.
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.
7
On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On November 10, 2022, the First Department granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and denied IKB’s separate motion for reargument and leave to appeal. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue (including all claims as to 5 trusts), leaving 17 trusts at issue. Discovery is ongoing.
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.
Disclosure from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo Bank”) (i) as custodian for the 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, (ii) as trustee and custodian for the 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan under the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, (iii) as custodian for the Potomac Mills mortgage loan under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, (iv) as trustee and custodian for the Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan under the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA, (v) as custodian for the Easton Town Center mortgage loan under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA and (vi) as custodian for the Quantum Park mortgage loan under the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA:
In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited (Phoenix Light) and certain related entities filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. Complaints raising similar allegations have been filed by Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state court. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors, and plaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. In July 2022, the district court dismissed Phoenix Light’s claims and certain of the claims asserted by Commerzbank AG, and subsequently entered judgment in each case in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. In August 2022, Phoenix Light and Commerzbank AG appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company previously settled two class actions filed by institutional investors and an action filed by the National Credit Union Administration with similar allegations. In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed substantially similar lawsuits in New York state court alleging Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, failed to take appropriate actions upon learning of defective mortgage loan documentation.
Disclosure from CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as special servicer:
From time to time, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CWCAM”), is a party to lawsuits and other legal proceedings as part of its duties as a special servicer (e.g., enforcement of loan obligations) and/or arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than as set forth in the following paragraphs, there are currently no legal proceedings pending, and no legal proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, against CWCAM or of which any of its property is the subject, that are material to the certificateholders.
On December 17, 2015, U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee under five pooling and servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, (ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, (iii) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, (iv) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and (v) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 commenced a proceeding with the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota (the “State Court”) for a declaratory judgment as to the proper allocation of certain proceeds (“Disputed Proceeds”) received by CWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property in New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property. The petition requests the State Court to instruct the trustee, the trust beneficiaries, and any other interested parties as to the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute penalty interest and/or the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute gain-on-sale proceeds, with respect to each trust. On February 24, 2016, CWCAM made a limited appearance with the State Court to file a motion to dismiss this proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction, mootness, standing and forum non conveniens. On July 19, 2016, the State Court denied CWCAM’s motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2016, the action was removed to federal court in Minnesota
8
(“FederalCourt”). On October 21, 2016, the Federal Court held a hearing on the motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY Court”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2017, the Federal Court reserved the determination on the motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to remand the matter to state court and granted the motion to transfer the proceeding to the SDNY Court. Cross motions for judgment on the pleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to decide the case based on the pleadings and the SDNY Court ordered discovery. All fact discovery was completed in December, 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15, 2019. The parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment, and on March 19, 2020, the SDNY Court entered an opinion and order in which it granted summary judgment in CWCAM’s favor and held that CWCAM was entitled to the entire amount of penalty interest and that CWCAM’s determination of Yield Maintenance was correct. In the 127-page opinion, the SDNY Court found for CWCAM on every issue presented by the trustee’s petition, namely, that the funds in dispute constitute penalty interest and yield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the amount of penalty interest and yield maintenance was correctly calculated. An appeal of the SDNY Court’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on June 21, 2021. On July 14, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a decision affirming in part and reversing in part the SDNY Court’s decision and remanding to the SDNY Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY’s Court holding that Penalty Interest and Yield Maintenance are paid before Gain-On-Sale Proceeds. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings that portion of the SDNY Court’s decision related to approximately $67.2 million in interest on advances. On January 13, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which (among other things) they agreed to stipulate that the amount of interest on advances that accrued on or before June 3, 2014 is $27.5 million, and that CWCAM would pay that amount into escrow for distribution to certificateholders upon the entry of an order by the Court approving the settlement. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the trusts, provided notice of the settlement to all parties in interest via a notice program approved by the Court. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March 16, 2023.
On December 1, 2017, a complaint against CWCAM and others was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-9463 (the “Original Complaint”). The gravamen of the Original Complaint alleged breaches of a contract and fiduciary duties by CWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in its capacity as collateral manager for the collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapital Cobalt Vr, Ltd. In total, there are 14 counts pled in the Original Complaint. Of those 14, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a substantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., Index No. 653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”). The gravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York. In total there are 16 counts pled in the New Complaint. Of those 16 counts, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, 1 count seeks a declaratory judgement that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contracts in question and 1 count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the declaratory judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons was not served on the defendants until July 13, 2018 and July 16, 2018. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the court on July 31, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint in its entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion almost in its entirety, dismissing 11 of the 16 counts and partially dismissing 2 additional counts. Of the remaining counts, 2 are asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice of appeal relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and on September 26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM attempting to address deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissed by the August 20, 2019 order. CWCI and CWCAM filed its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2019. The court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and on October 23, 2020, the court granted the motion dismissing the amended claims. On November 30, 2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd filed a notice of appeal relating to the October 23, 2020 dismissal order. On April 27, 2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAM that were part of the August 20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal of two counts for breach of the Collateral Management Agreement against CWCI. CWCI sought leave to file an appeal of the decision. The plaintiff also sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the claims against CWCAM. Both requests for leave were denied by the First Department. On May 15, 2020, CWCI and CWCAM filed a motion to renew its motion to dismiss as to 4 of the remaining counts (including the remaining two counts against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment), based on a decision entered by Judge Failla in a trust instruction proceeding in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding summary judgment in favor of CWCAM. On September 7, 2021, the court denied the motion to renew. CWCI and CWCAM filed a notice of appeal, which they perfected by the filing of their opening brief on July 1, 2022. On November 15, 2022, the First Department affirmed the court’s denial of the motion to renew. On October 1, 2021, CWCI and CWCAM moved to reargue the denial of the motion to renew (or alternatively, the motion to dismiss) with respect to certain of Cobalt’s claims, including the remaining 2 claims against CWCAM, based on the First Department’s April 27, 2021 decision. On March 24, 2022, the court denied the relief sought in the motion to reargue. CWCI and CWCAM have appealed the court’s decision on the motion to reargue and filed their opening brief on July 11, 2022. The appeal was dismissed as being non-appealable on August 30, 2022. CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the related pooling and servicing agreements in good faith and the remaining allegations in the New Complaint are without merit.
9
Item 1119 of Regulation AB
Provided previously in the prospectus of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on December 15, 2016 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB
The reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports are attached hereto under Item 15.
The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank”) discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:
1) Servicing Criteria impacted
1122(d)(4)(ix) –Adjustments to interest rates or rates of return for pool assets with variable rates are computed based on the related pool asset documents.
2) Material Instance of Noncompliance with Servicing Criteria
During compliance testing, it was discovered, that not all FlexARM loan mortgagors were offered loan rates within 45-60 days before the rate change date, as required per the related pool asset documents. Per the Note, if the holder fails to offer a loan rate within 45-60 days of any change date a margin of 2.25% is to be used. Given the notification was not made to the borrowers, a 3% margin was incorrectly applied. The noncompliance in Item 1122 (d)(4)(ix) is related to a servicing portfolio which is wholly owned by the investor and is not held in a publicly traded security.
3) Remediation
The following remediation procedures have been initiated by KeyBank: (i) the impacted mortgage loans are currently in the process of being identified, (ii) investor contact has been initiated, (iii) corrective actions are being considered and will be tracked and monitored by senior management, (iv) procedures will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, to include new tracking and action steps to prevent this situation from recurring in the future, and (v) training will be provided to the relevant staff members to prevent a recurrence.
The identified material instance of noncompliance with servicing criteria did not involve the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB
The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
Exhibit Number |
Description |
|
|
4.1 |
10
|
|
4.2 |
4.3 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
4.8 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
11
33 |
Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. (see Explanatory Note #8) |
|
|
33.1 |
|
|
|
33.2 |
|
|
|
33.3 |
|
|
|
33.4 |
|
|
|
33.5 |
|
|
|
33.6 |
|
|
|
33.7 |
|
|
|
33.8 |
33.9 |
|
|
|
33.10 |
|
|
|
33.11a |
|
|
|
33.11b |
|
|
|
33.12 |
|
|
|
33.13 |
|
|
|
33.14 |
|
|
|
33.15 |
|
|
|
33.16 |
|
|
|
12
33.17a |
|
|
|
33.17b |
|
|
|
33.18a |
|
|
|
33.18b |
|
|
|
33.19 |
|
|
|
33.20 |
|
|
|
33.21 |
|
|
|
33.22a |
|
|
|
33.22b |
|
|
|
33.23 |
|
|
|
33.24 |
33.25 |
|
|
|
33.26 |
|
|
|
33.27a |
|
|
|
33.27b |
|
|
|
33.28 |
|
|
|
13
33.29 |
|
|
|
33.30 |
|
|
|
33.31 |
|
|
|
33.32 |
|
|
|
33.33 |
|
|
|
33.34 |
|
|
|
33.35 |
|
|
|
33.36 |
|
|
|
33.37a |
|
|
|
33.37b |
|
|
|
33.38 |
33.39 |
|
|
|
33.40 |
|
|
|
33.41 |
|
|
|
33.42 |
|
|
|
33.43a |
|
|
|
14
33.43b |
|
|
|
33.44 |
|
|
|
33.45 |
|
|
|
34 |
Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. |
|
|
34.1 |
|
|
|
34.2 |
|
|
|
34.3 |
|
|
|
34.4 |
|
|
|
34.5 |
|
|
|
34.6 |
|
|
|
34.7 |
|
|
|
34.8 |
|
|
|
34.9 |
|
|
|
34.10 |
|
|
|
34.11a |
|
|
|
34.11b |
|
|
|
34.12 |
|
|
|
15
34.13 |
|
|
|
34.14 |
|
|
|
34.15 |
|
|
|
34.16 |
|
|
|
34.17a |
|
|
|
34.17b |
|
|
|
34.18a |
|
|
|
34.18b |
|
|
|
34.19 |
|
|
|
34.20 |
|
|
|
34.21 |
|
|
|
34.22a |
|
|
|
34.22b |
|
|
|
34.23 |
|
|
|
34.24 |
|
|
|
34.25 |
16
34.26 |
|
|
|
34.27a |
|
|
|
34.27b |
|
|
|
34.28 |
|
|
|
34.29 |
|
|
|
34.30 |
|
|
|
34.31 |
|
|
|
34.32 |
|
|
|
34.33 |
|
|
|
34.34 |
|
|
|
34.35 |
|
|
|
34.36 |
|
|
|
34.37a |
|
|
|
34.37b |
|
|
|
34.38 |
|
|
|
17
34.39 |
34.40 |
|
|
|
34.41 |
|
|
|
34.42 |
|
|
|
34.43a |
|
|
|
34.43b |
|
|
|
34.44 |
|
|
|
34.45 |
|
|
|
35 |
Servicer compliance statements. (see Explanatory Note #9) |
|
|
35.1 |
|
|
|
35.2 |
Servicer compliance statement, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as special servicer |
|
|
35.3 |
Servicer compliance statement, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator |
|
|
35.4 |
|
|
|
35.5 |
|
|
|
35.6 |
35.7 |
|
|
|
35.8 |
|
|
|
35.9 |
|
|
|
35.10 |
|
|
|
18
35.11 |
|
|
|
35.12 |
|
|
|
35.13 |
|
|
|
35.14 |
|
|
|
99.1 |
|
|
|
99.2 |
|
|
|
99.3 |
|
|
|
99.4 |
19
99.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
99.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
99.7 |
|
|
20
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.
Date: March 31, 2023
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(Depositor)
|
/s/ Richard Simpson |
Richard Simpson, President |
21
ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS
Serious News for Serious Traders! Try StreetInsider.com Premium Free!
You May Also Be Interested In
- Deutsche Boerse AG (DB1:GR) (DBOEY) PT Lowered to EUR184 at Citi
- Citizens Financial Group (CFG) PT Raised to $39 at Argus
- Citi Downgrades Liberty SiriusXM (LSXMA) to Neutral, 'fairly balanced at prevailing levels'
Create E-mail Alert Related Categories
SEC FilingsRelated Entities
CitiSign up for StreetInsider Free!
Receive full access to all new and archived articles, unlimited portfolio tracking, e-mail alerts, custom newswires and RSS feeds - and more!
