x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number of the issuing entity: 333-193376-04

New York
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization of

the issuing entity)

38-3931858

38-3931859

38-7111611

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Numbers)

Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o 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. o 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 o No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s 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.

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.

Non-accelerated filer ⌧ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company o

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. o

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. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). o 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.

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. o Yes o No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

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).

The Exhibit Index describes exhibits provided by certain parties (in their capacities indicated on the Exhibit Index) with respect to the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 6.3% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and three other pari passu loans, which are not assets of the issuing entity. A pari passu portion of the loan combination was securitized in the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Mortgage Trust transaction, Commission File Number 333-184376-11 (the “COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction”). This loan combination, including the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, is being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Exhibit Index describes exhibits provided by certain parties (in their capacities indicated on the Exhibit Index) with respect to the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 11.3% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. This loan combination, including the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan, was serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the issuing entity prior to the closing of the securitization of the other pari passu portion of the 25 Broadway loan combination in the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Mortgage Trust transaction, Commission File Number 333-193376-05 (the “COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction”). After the closing of the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction on May 13, 2014, this loan combination, including the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan was, and will continue to be, serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement with respect to the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.3 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The master servicer of a pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement also functions as the primary servicer of the related mortgage loans serviced and administered pursuant to such agreement unless a separate primary servicer is identified herein. If this report does not identify a separate primary servicer, the servicer compliance statement provided by the master servicer under any such agreement also encompasses its responsibilities as primary servicer of the related mortgage loan or mortgage loans.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is the certificate administrator of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the primary servicer of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan. As a result, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is a “servicer” as defined in Item 1108(a)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, in the capacities described above, because it is servicing mortgage loans that constituted 10% or more of the assets of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation reports and servicer compliance statements delivered by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in the capacities described above are listed in the Exhibit Index.

U.S. Bank National Association acts as trustee of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan. Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction and the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction, the trustee is required to provide an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria solely with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB (regarding advances of funds or guarantees regarding collections, cash flows or distributions, and any interest or other fees charged for such advances, are made, reviewed and approved as specified in the transaction agreements). However, during the reporting period, the trustee did not perform any servicing function with respect to the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB. The master servicer or the special servicer, to the extent required, performed the servicing function identified with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, and each such party included Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB in the assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountant’s attestation report for the subject transaction. As a result, this Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria of the trustee. One or more other servicers of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan have delivered one or more assessments of compliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports from CoreLogic ~~Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. and National Tax Search,~~Solutions, LLC. ~~These entities were~~This entity was engaged by the primary servicer of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan to remit tax payments received from the escrow accounts of borrowers to local taxing authorities, to report tax amounts due, to verify tax parcel information, and to verify non-escrow tax payments. These servicing functions are included within the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB. Therefore, under the principles-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, ~~these vendors are “servicers”~~this vendor is a “servicer” for the purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. See Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation report and servicer compliance statement from Computershare Trust Company, National Association (“CTCNA”). CTCNA was engaged by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”), in its capacity as certificate administrator and custodian, to perform certain specified servicing functions identified in the assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports. Wells Fargo engaged CTCNA in connection with the sale of Wells Fargo’s corporate trust services business to CTCNA and its affiliates. Further, under the principles-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, this party is a “servicer” for the purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB. See Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation reports and servicer compliance statements of the certificate administrator of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan are omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K as the certificate administrator pursuant to the related pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement does not perform any activities that address servicing criteria with respect to the issuing entity and because they are each not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB.

With respect to the pari passu loan combination that includes the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, the servicer compliance statement of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as special servicer of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, listed on the Exhibit Index is omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K as it is not required by Item 1123 of Regulation AB to be included on this Annual Report on Form 10-K because it is an unaffiliated party that is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB.

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

The 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan (Loan Number 1 on Annex A-1 of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on April 7, 2014 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 ~~$27,477.376.00~~$27,171,083 for the twelve- month period ended December 31, ~~2020.~~2021.

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.

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, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Trustee, and Custodian, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as ~~custodian,~~Certificate Administrator and Custodian.

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited and certain related entities and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, ~~National Association,~~alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities 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, as ~~certificate~~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. Wells Fargo Bank previously settled two class action lawsuits with similar allegations that were filed in November 2014 and December 2016 by institutional investors in the Southern District of New York and New York state court, respectively. In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed complaints 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. In March 2021, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the case filed by the NCUA.

In addition to the foregoing cases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”) and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches.

With respect to each of 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 ~~custodian, and~~ to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the related RMBS trusts.

U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as ~~trustee.~~trustee or successor trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groups against U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts. Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the trustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.

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, that it has meritorious defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously. However, 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.

On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent fifteen Delaware statutory trusts (the “DSTs”) that issued securities backed by student loans (the “Student Loans”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) in its capacities as indenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other institutions in their respective transaction capacities, with respect to the DSTs and the Student Loans. This lawsuit is captioned The National Collegiate Student Loan Master Trust I, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.) (the “NCMSLT Action”). The complaint, as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged that the DSTs have been harmed as a result of purported misconduct or omissions by the defendants concerning administration of the trusts and special servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have made assertions against U.S. Bank concerning special servicing that appear to be based on certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT Action.

U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case while other prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans are litigated. On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases. On January 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrial purposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans, which remains pending.

U.S. Bank denies liability in the NCMSLT Action and believes it has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer in good faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of the agreements governing the DSTs and that it has meritorious defenses. It has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“~~DBTCA”~~DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“~~DBNTC”~~DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“~~RMBS”~~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~~“BlackRock SDNY ~~Case”~~Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the ~~“BlackRock~~“BlackRock California ~~Case”~~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”~~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. ~~As of March 1,~~On October 27, 2021, ~~both motions~~DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment ~~have been briefed~~relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and ~~are awaiting decision by the court.~~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 November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“~~Commerzbank”~~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. ~~As of March 1, 2021, both motions~~On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment ~~have been briefed~~ and ~~are awaiting decision by the court.~~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”~~“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. 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. That appeal has been fully briefed. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. That appeal is being briefed. 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. 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 for this transaction.

Beginning on June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors 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 trustee's 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. In November 2018, Wells Fargo Bank reached an agreement, in which it denied any wrongdoing, to resolve such claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts at issue. On May 6, 2019, the court entered an order approving the settlement agreement. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning several RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the settlement agreement. In addition to the foregoing cases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”) and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches. With respect to each of 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 related RMBS trusts.

In the last several years, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee or successor trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groups against U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts. Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the trustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. 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, that it has meritorious defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously. However, 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. On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent fifteen Delaware statutory trusts (the “DSTs”) that issued securities backed by student loans (the “Student Loans”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) in its capacities as indenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other institutions in their respective transaction capacities, with respect to the DSTs and the Student Loans. This lawsuit is captioned The National Collegiate Student Loan Master Trust I, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.) (the “NCMSLT Action”). The complaint, as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged that the DSTs have been harmed as a result of purported misconduct or omissions by the defendants concerning administration of the trusts and special servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have made assertions against U.S. Bank concerning special servicing that appear to be based on certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT Action. U.S. Bank believes that it has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer in good faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of the agreements governing the DSTs (the “Governing Agreements”), and accordingly that the claims against it in the NCMSLT Action are without merit. U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case while other prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans are litigated. On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases. On January 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrial purposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans (the “Consolidated Action”). U.S. Bank and other parties to the Consolidated Action have briefed and argued motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 12(c) regarding disputed issues of contractual interpretation at issue in one or more of the cases comprising the Consolidated Action, including the NCMSLT Action. The Court has not yet ruled on these motions or on U.S. Bank’s dismissal motion in the NCMSLT Action. U.S. Bank intends to continue to defend the NCMSLT Action 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 April 7, 2014 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5).

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 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Schedule II to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

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 Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, which is being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction, are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Schedule II to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the COMM 2014-CCRE14 Transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

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 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan, which is being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction, are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Schedule II to the pooling and servicing agreement for the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.3 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the COMM 2014-CCRE17 Transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

The servicer compliance statements are attached as Exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

33 Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.

~~33.8~~33.10 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

~~33.16~~33.17 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

34 Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.

~~34.8~~34.10 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

~~34.16~~34.17 U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of the 25 Broadway Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

~~35.5~~35.6 Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer of the Google and Amazon Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

(b) The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above.

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.