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, 2018
or
☐ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
333-189017-02
(Commission File Number of issuing entity)
0001590058
(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-GC17
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
333-189017
(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)
Starwood Mortgage Funding I LLC
(Central Index Key Number: 0001682511)
Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company
(Central Index Key Number: 0001541502)
Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending, L.P.
(Central Index Key Number: 0001558761)
The Bancorp Bank
(Central Index Key Number: 0001505494)
(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
46-4279361 | ||
46-4269164 | ||
New York | 46-7177552 | |
(State or other jurisdiction of organization of the issuing entity) |
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
c/o Citibank, N.A.
388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)
(212) 816-5614
Registrants telephone number, including area code
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
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 | ☒ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | 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 l3(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
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 registrants 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 registrants 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
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 Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Omitted.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Omitted.
Item 7. Managements 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.
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 Accounting Fees and Services.
Omitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB
The property securing the Ernst & Young Tower mortgage loan constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB and as disclosed in the Prospectus Supplement for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2013-GC17 filed on December 9, 2013. The Ernst & Young Tower mortgage loan was repaid in full on December 6, 2018 and consequently is no longer an asset of the trust, and the related property is no longer considered a significant obligor with respect to the trust.
Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB
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 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee:
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 trustees 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.
Disclosure from Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator:
Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) is acting as the Certificate Administrator of this commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (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 Citibanks 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 Citibanks 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 Yorks Streit Act (the Streit Act). Following oral argument on Citibanks 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 courts 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 courts 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 Citibanks ability to perform its duties as Certificate Administrator under the pooling and servicing agreement for this CMBS transaction.
Disclosure from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator and custodian for the Miracle Mile Shops mortgage loan under the COMM 2013-CCRE12 PSA:
Since June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors have filed civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Wells Fargo Bank) in its capacity as trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) trusts. The complaints against Wells Fargo Bank alleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustees alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought included money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Wells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the agreement. With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.
Item 1119 of Regulation AB
Provided previously in the prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on December 9, 2013 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5) 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 Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank National Association (Midland), as sub-servicer for the Miracle Mile Shops mortgage loan under the COMM 2013-CCRE12 PSA, discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:
Material Instance of Noncompliance
In certain instances, the Schedule AL Files (Item 1125 of Regulation AB) were not reported in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements, in conflict with Item 1122(d)(3)(i): Reports to investors, including those to be filed with the Commission, are maintained in accordance with the transaction agreements and applicable Commission requirements. Specifically, such reports: (A) Are prepared in accordance with timeframes and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements. The noncompliance consisted of omitted or inaccurately reported numbers due to the following: (1) the initial setup files contained information at the asset level, and Midland was required to manually compile the information to present it at the loan level as required by Schedule AL; and (2) certain reporting requirements required manual processing by Midland, including the use of various data computation formulas, quality control checks and analysis.
The identified instances did not involve the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K report.
Steps Taken to Remedy the Material Instance of Noncompliance
Midland is currently remediating the Schedule AL reporting for the CMBS transactions found to be incorrect, and will be making improvements to its systems, processes and procedures to support its Schedule AL reporting obligations.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB
The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
(a) | List the following documents filed as a part of the report: |
(1) | Not Applicable |
(2) | Not Applicable |
(3) | Exhibits listed below are either included or incorporated by reference as indicated below: |
1 | The Miracle Mile Shops mortgage loan, which represented approximately 8.7% 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 five pari passu companion loans that are held outside the issuing entity. The Miracle Mile Shops mortgage loan and the related companion loans are serviced pursuant to the COMM 2013-CCRE12 PSA. |
(b) | The exhibits required to be filed by Registrant pursuant to Item 601of Regulation S-K are listed above. |
(c) | Not Applicable |
2 | This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statement of Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as sub-servicer for the Miracle Mile Shops mortgage loan under the COMM 2013-CCRE12 PSA, because Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association 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. |
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 28, 2019
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(Depositor)
/s/ Richard Simpson |
Richard Simpson, President |