(212)816-5693

(Telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to sectionSection 12(g) of the Act:  None.

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 RegulationS-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 RegulationS-K (§ 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 Form10-K or any amendment to this Form10-K.

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-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 Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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.     ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act).  ☐    Yes    ☒  No

State the aggregate market value of the voting andnon-voting common equity held bynon-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 Form10-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.

Omitted.

PART II

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

Omitted.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.[Reserved]

Omitted.

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.

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 AccountingAccountant Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.

No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the issuing entity.

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.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

On or about December 23, 2009,

There is no significant update regarding the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaintlitigation matters described in the Superior CourtRedwood’s Form 10-K for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against the depositor, Redwood Trust, Inc. (“Redwood Trust”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”), which alleged that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Seattle Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the alleged misstatements concerned the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The FHLB-Seattle alleged claimsyear ended December 31, 2021 under the Securities Actheading “Item 1117 of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and sought to rescind the purchase of the Seattle Certificate and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received) as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seattle Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, at December 31, 2018, approximately $126 million of principal and $12 million of interest payments had been made in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of December 31, 2018, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $8 million. The matter was subsequently resolved and the claims were dismissed by the FHLB-Seattle as to all the FHLB-Seattle Defendants. At the time the Seattle Certificate was issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were named as defendants in the action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the resolution of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.”

On or about July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) against the depositor and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”), which alleged that the Schwab Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. Schwab alleged only a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law against the depositor and sought unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from the depositor. Schwab claimed that the depositor made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Schwab Certificate”) issued in the 2005-4 RMBS and purchased by Schwab. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concerned the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Schwab Certificate. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $15 million, and, at December 31, 2018, approximately $14 million of principal and $1 million of interest payments had been made in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of December 31, 2018, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $1 million. At the time the Schwab Certificate was issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named as defendants in the action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the resolution of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

The business of the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates has included, and continues to include, activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of residential mortgage loans. In addition, the business of the sponsor has, in the past, included activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of debt obligations and other assets through the issuance of collateralized debt obligations (commonly referred to as CDO transactions). Because of their involvement in the securitization and CDO businesses, the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates could become the subject of litigation relating to these businesses, including additional litigation of the type described above, and could also become the subject of governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or lawsuits and governmental authorities could allege that these entities violated applicable law or regulation in the conduct of their business. As an example, in July 2016 the sponsor, the depositor and their affiliates became aware of a complaint filed by the State of California on April 1, 2016 against Morgan Stanley & Co. and certain of its affiliates alleging, among other things, that there were misleading statements contained in offering materials for 28 different mortgage pass through certificates purchased by various California investors, including various California public pension systems, from Morgan Stanley and alleging that Morgan Stanley made false or fraudulent claims in connection with the sale of those certificates. Of the 28 mortgage pass-through certificates that were the subject of the complaint, two were Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004 and two were Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2007. With respect to each of those certificates, RWT Holdings, Inc. was the sponsor and Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. was the depositor. The plaintiffs subsequently withdrew from the litigation their claims based on eight of the 28 mortgage pass-through certificates, including one of the Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004. At the time these Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates were issued, the depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of these certificates for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to these certificates, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

The depositor has been notified by Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), respectively, of material pending legal proceedings to which Citibank and Wells Fargo are, respectively,is subject in connection with theirits role as trustee on certain RMBS transactions. This Sequoia transaction is not a party to nor subject to the pending legal proceedings.

The disclosure that the depositor received from each of Citibank and Wells Fargo respectively, is included here:

Citibank,

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as Securities Administrator of this RMBS transaction.

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited and certain related entities and the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions. Certain of these Citibank as trustee-related matters are disclosed herein.

On June 18, 2014, a civil action wasNational Credit Union Administration (NCUA) 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 Citibank’s 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 Citibankcomplaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similaragainst Wells Fargo Bank, alleging 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 Citibank’s motion for summary judgmentagainst Wells Fargo Bank 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 servecapacity 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 York’s Streit Act (the “Streit Act”). Following oral argument on Citibank’s 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 court’s 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 Receivertrustee for a failed financial institutionnumber of residential mortgage-backed securities trusts. Complaints raising similar allegations have been filed a civil action against Citibankby Commerzbank AG 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,York and violation of the Trust Indenture Act. Citibank jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank ofby IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A., entitiesstate court. In each case, the plaintiffs allege 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 Court’s 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 Citibank’s ability to perform its duties as Securities Administrator under the pooling and servicing agreement for this RMBS transaction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

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 assertedplaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to: (i)to 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 damagesWells 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 unspecified amount, reimbursementagreement 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 expenses,seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and equitable relief.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 reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing,asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed 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 againstprovide Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federalnotice of their representation and state court are not covered by the agreement. warranty breaches.

With respect to each of the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs’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.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

The seller and servicing administrator, the sponsor and the depositor are each either directly or indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of Redwood Trust, Inc. There is not currently, and there was not during the past two years, any material business relationship, agreement, arrangement, transaction or understanding that is or was entered into outside the ordinary course of business or is or was on terms other than would be obtained in an arm’s length transaction with an unrelated third party, between (a) any of the seller, the sponsor, the depositor and the issuing entity on the one hand and (b) any of the trustee, any servicer, the custodian, the master servicer, the securities administrator or either originator of the mortgage loans on the other hand.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance are attached hereto under Item 15.

The registrant has prepared the Table below in connection with this transaction. The Table shows, in one compiled format, which entity participating in a servicing function for this transaction was assigned responsibility for each criterion in Item 1122(d). In the Table below, certain criteria are not applicable, given the structure of the offering, and accordingly no entity is assigned responsibility for such criteria.

On November 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. transferred substantially all of its Corporate Trust Services business to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. and its affiliates. For certain transactions where one or more of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s roles did not transfer to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. on November 1, 2021, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. engaged Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as its agent to perform certain duties under the related transaction documents. Therefore, the reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance of Computershare Trust Company, N.A., as agent to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in its capacities as master servicer and custodian are included under Item 15.

Also, Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB (“Christiana”), the trustee, does not participate in any servicing function for the transaction that is the subject of this10-K filing. Therefore, there is no reference to Christiana in the chart below; nor does this10-K filing include any assessment or auditor report from Christiana. Finally, any discrepancies between the chart below and the assessment of compliance exhibit provided by any party listed in the chart is explained by the fact that the chart is

specific to the transaction that is the subject of this10-K filing, whereas each party’s respective assessment of compliance is issued on a platform basis and includes coverage of other additional transactions that are not the subject of this10-K filing.

SEQUOIA RESIDENTIAL FUNDING, INC.

SEMT2013-3

Regulation AB 1122(d)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Material Instance of Noncompliance by the Company

Management’s assessment of compliance with the Pre-Sale Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB for the Period, disclosed  that a material instance of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criterion set forth in Item  1122(d)(2)(v) for the Pre-Sale Period as follows.

Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(2)(v) provides as follows:

Management’s Discussion of the Material Instance of Noncompliance During the Pre-Sale Period

1122(d)(2)(v) – Maintenance of Custodial Accounts:

(a)The transaction agreements for the RMBS Master Servicing Platform transactions require the institutions maintaining custodial accounts for each transaction to satisfy certain eligibility criteria. Generally, such eligibility criteria can be satisfied if the institution holding the account either (i) possesses requisite long and/or short-term credit ratings from the specified rating agency(ies) (collectively, the “Requisite Ratings”), or (ii) satisfies one of the other alternative means of establishing account eligibility (collectively, “Alternative Means”). For the Pre-Sale Period, Management has determined that certain custodial accounts held at Wells Fargo for certain transactions in the RMBS Master Servicing Platform were not maintained “as set forth in the transaction agreements” because (i) the Company’s or the Company’s holding company, as applicable, long and/or short-term issuer ratings during the Pre-Sale Period were lower than the related Requisite Ratings thresholds for such transactions, and (ii) there was no Alternative Means during the Pre-Sale Period to satisfy account eligibility requirements for such transactions.

(b)In December 2019, for approximately 1,200 transactions that were on the RMBS Master Servicing Platform at the time, the Company sent notices to investors and certain transaction parties, including trustees, for which the Company, at the time, believed there was, or could be, account eligibility noncompliance (the “December 2019 Notice”). Based on its review, the Company concluded in its 2019 and 2020 Assessments of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria that the scope of (i.e. number of impacted transactions with) account eligibility noncompliance for the RMBS Master Servicing Platform was less than half of the approximately 1,200 RMBS Master Servicing Platform transactions listed on the December 2019 Notice.

(c)Management believes that, as of the end of the Pre-Sale Period, less than one third of the 1,450 RMBS Master Servicing transactions listed on Appendix A to this 2021 Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria have account eligibility noncompliance. During the Pre-Sale Period, in response to questions it received from some trustees for some transactions with account eligibility noncompliance, the Company provided information to such trustees on the status of remediating transactions with account eligibility noncompliance. During the Pre-Sale Period, it was determined that one additional RMBS Master Servicing Platform transaction with account eligibility noncompliance that was not included on the December 2019 Notice. With the sale of the Corporate Trust Services division to Computershare on November 1, 2021, Computershare either as Wells Fargo’s agent or as successor to Wells Fargo’s master servicing role (when and if such succession occurs), has taken responsibility for remediating RMBS Master Servicing Platform transactions with account eligibility noncompliance since, in either capacity, it is performing the activities related to Item 1122(d)(2)(v).

(d)Although the lack of Requisite Ratings or Alternative Means described above resulted in technical noncompliance with the relevant transaction agreements, Management believes that such technical noncompliance does not have a material impact on either (i) the Company’s ability to master service the transactions itself, or through its agent, in accordance with the transaction agreements, or (ii) the securities issued in connection with the related transactions or the investors holding such securities.

The identified instance involved the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K.

Computershare Trust Company, National Association

The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by the Computershare Trust Company, National Association (the “Company”) for its master servicing platform discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:

Material Instance of Noncompliance by the Company

Management’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB for the Period, disclosed that a material instance of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criterion set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(v) as follows:

Servicing Criterion 1122(d)(2)(v) provides as follows:

Management’s Discussion of the Material Instance of Noncompliance

1122(d)(2)(v) – Maintenance of Custodial Accounts:

The identified instance involved the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

Omitted.

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.