On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”)DBNTC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”)DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA)(“TIA”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Poolingpooling and Servicing Agreements,servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss as to the 64 trusts formed under indentures for which it retained jurisdiction. Instead, the court ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as to those indenture trusts.dismiss.  On February 23,March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as toin federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the 64 indentureTIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.   The amended complaint alleges that the trusts includedat issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in the original U.S. District Court complaint.a sum certain.  On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunityfiled a motion to file new defensive motionsdismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, 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 thisplaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.  On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  ItOn January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The motion is anticipated thatbeing briefed by the parties.  Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs will,filed a state court action against DBTCA in the near future, fileSuperior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a new state court complaintdemand for money damages in a sum certain.  On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to some or allPlaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the 500duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action.  On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The motion is being briefed by the parties.  Discovery is ongoing.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten RMBS trusts governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements which were dismissed fromagainst DBNTC in the U.S. District Court action. for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the TIA, breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. Royal Park’s complaint alleges that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part plaintiffs’ claims: the court dismissed plaintiff’s TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification. On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to propose a redefined class.  On May 1, 2017, Royal Park filed a renewed motion for class certification.  As of May 30, 2017, Royal Park’s renewed motion for class certification has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.  Discovery is ongoing.  On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class action complaint against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in the other, ongoing Royal Park litigation.  On October 10, 2017, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint.  As of November 30, 2017, DBNTC’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.

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 Noticesummons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, state court naming as defendantsNew York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of 37 RMBS trusts (the “IKB Action”). Thethe trusts.  On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims in the IKB Action appearfor breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to be substantively similar to the SDNY Action. The IKB Action is not styled as a putative class action, but may attempt to bring derivative claims on behalfavoid conflicts of interest, violation of New York’s Streit Act, violation of the named RMBS Trusts.Trust Indenture Act, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.  IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA intendsare 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

4

---

vigorously defend dismiss.  On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts.  As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the IKB Action. DBTCA hascourt.  On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts.  Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.

It is DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s belief that they have no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s presentand DBNTC’s current evaluation, the litigation disclosed in this paragraph)the immediately preceding seven paragraphs that would materially affect itstheir ability to perform itstheir duties as trustee on behalf ofunder the trust identified on the cover ofIndenture for this transaction.