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: 333-191331-04

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

the issuing entity)

38-3932228

38-3932229

38-3932238

(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

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. o

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). 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 Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 10.4% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date, is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. This loan combination, including the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan, is being serviced and administered pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.1 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 Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 11.4% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The Maine Mall Mortgage Loan is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. The other pari passu portion of the loan combination was securitized in the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC21 transaction, Commission File Number 333-189017-04 (the “CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction”). This loan combination, including the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, is being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 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.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas acts as trustee of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, 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 mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement have delivered one or more assessments of compliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.

U.S. Bank National Association acts as trustee of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan. Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 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 Maine Mall 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 Solutions, LLC. This entity was engaged by the master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the primary servicer of the Maine Mall 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, 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 assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation report and servicer compliance statement of the certificate administrator of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan is 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 it 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 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.

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 Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (Control Number 1 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on June 24, 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 ~~$15,572,138.00~~$17,496,770.00 for the ~~twelve- month~~twelve-month period ended December 31, ~~2021.~~2023.

The Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (Control Number 2 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on June 24, 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 ~~$7,544,384.80~~$19,545,022.04 for the ~~twelve- month~~twelve-month period ended December 31, ~~2021.~~2023.

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~~certificate administrator and ~~Custodian,~~as custodian, U.S. Bank National Association, as ~~Certificate Administrator, Trustee,~~trustee, as certificate administrator and ~~Custodian,~~as custodian, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as ~~Trustee, and CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer.~~trustee.

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited (Phoenix Light) and certain related entities ~~and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)~~ filed ~~complaints~~a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ~~against Wells Fargo Bank,~~ alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts. Complaints raising similar allegations have been filed by Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York, ~~and by~~ IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank (together, IKB) in New York state court, and Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC in New York state court. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors, and plaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. In July 2022, the district court dismissed Phoenix Light’s claims and certain of the claims asserted by Commerzbank AG, and subsequently entered judgment in each case in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. In August 2022, Phoenix Light and Commerzbank AG each appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Phoenix Light dismissed its appeal in May 2023, terminating its case. In November 2023, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. entered into an agreement with IKB to resolve IKB’s claims. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. previously settled two class ~~action lawsuits with similar allegations that were~~actions 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~~action filed by the ~~NCUA.~~

~~In addition to the foregoing cases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura~~National 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 connectionUnion Administration 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.similar allegations.

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.

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 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. On October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice. On April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s summary judgment order.

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. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. Discovery is ongoing.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “~~IKB~~”“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 August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. Discovery is ongoing.

It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties under the related servicing agreement for this transaction.

~~From time to time, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CWCAM~~”), is a party to lawsuits and other legal proceedings as part of its duties as a special servicer (e.g., enforcement of loan obligations) and/or arising in the ordinary course of business. Other than as set forth in the following paragraphs, there are currently no legal proceedings pending, and no legal proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, against CWCAM or of which any of its property is the subject, that are material to the certificateholders.

On December 17, 2015, U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee under five pooling and servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, (ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, (iii) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, (iv) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and (v) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 commenced a proceeding with the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota (the “~~State Court”) for a declaratory judgment as to the proper allocation of certain proceeds (“Disputed Proceeds~~”) received by CWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property in New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property. The petition requests the State Court to instruct the trustee, the trust beneficiaries, and any other interested parties as to the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute penalty interest and/or the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute gain-on-sale proceeds, with respect to each trust. On February 24, 2016, CWCAM made a limited appearance with the State Court to file a motion to dismiss this proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction, mootness, standing and forum non conveniens. On July 19, 2016, the State Court denied CWCAM’s motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2016, the action was removed to federal court in Minnesota (“~~Federal Court”). On October 21, 2016, the Federal Court held a hearing on the motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY Court~~”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2017, the Federal Court reserved the determination on the motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to remand the matter to state court and granted the motion to transfer the proceeding to the SDNY Court. Cross motions for judgment on the pleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to decide the case based on the pleadings and the SDNY Court ordered discovery. All fact discovery was completed in December, 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15, 2019. The parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment, and onMarch 19, 2020, the SDNY Court entered an opinion and order in which it granted summary judgment in CWCAM’s favor and held that CWCAM was entitled to the entire amount of penalty interest and that CWCAM’s determination of Yield Maintenance was correct. In the 127-page opinion, the SDNY Court found for CWCAM on every issue presented by the trustee’s petition, namely, that the funds in dispute constitute penalty interest and yield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the amount of penalty interest and yield maintenance was correctly calculated. An appeal of the SDNY Court’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on June 21, 2021. The parties await the decision of the appeals court.

On December 1, 2017, a complaint against CWCAM and others was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-9463 (the “~~Original Complaint~~”). The gravamen of the Original Complaint alleged breaches of a contract and fiduciary duties by CWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in its capacity as collateral manager for the collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapital Cobalt Vr, Ltd. In total, there are 14 counts pled in the Original Complaint. Of those 14, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a substantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., Index No. 653277/2018 (the “~~New Complaint~~”). The gravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York. In total there are 16 counts pled in the New Complaint. Of those 16 counts, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, 1 count seeks a declaratory judgement that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contracts in question and 1 count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the declaratory judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons was not served on the defendants until July 13, 2018 and July 16, 2018. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the court on July 31, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint in its entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion almost in its entirety, dismissing 11 of the 16 counts and partially dismissing 2 additional counts. Of the remaining counts, 2 are asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice of appeal relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and on September 26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM attempting to address deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissed by the August, 20, 2019 order. CWCI and CWCAM filed its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2019. The court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and on October 23, 2020, the court granted the motion dismissing the amended claims. On November 30, 2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd filed a notice of appeal relating to the October 23, 2020 dismissal order. On April 27, 2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAM that were part of the August 20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal of two counts for breach of the Collateral Management Agreement against CWCI. CWCI has sought leave to file an appeal of the decision. Both requests for leave were denied by the First Department. The plaintiff has also sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the claims against CWCAM. CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the related pooling and servicing agreements in good faith and the remaining allegations in the New Complaint are without merit.

On January 24, 2016 PSW NYC LLC commenced a complaint (the “PSW Complaint”) with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “PSW Court”) against Bank of America, N.A. as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreements for Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30 and COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreements for Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 (collectively, the “PSW Trusts”), PCV-M Holdings LLC and CWCapital Asset Management LLC, individually and as special servicer for the PSW Trusts (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking either (a) damages in an amount to be determined by the PSW Court but alleged by the plaintiffs to be approximately $500,000,000 – such amount being the amount PSW NYC LLC alleges would have been recovered on certain mezzanine loans (the “PCVST Mezzanine Loans”) related to the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property (the “PCVST Property”) in New York City which PSW NYC LLC sold to an entity related to the Defendants pursuant to a settlement agreement related to certain prior litigation (the “2010 Settlement Agreement”) or (b) the rescission of the 2010 Settlement Agreement which would result in, among other things, the rescission of the sale of the PCVST Mezzanine Loans and a claim for certain proceeds from the sale of the PCVST Property. PSW NYC LLC alleges that the Defendants procured the 2010 Settlement Agreement by fraud and further that the terms of the 2010 Settlement Agreement were breached by the Defendants. On February 26, 2016, CWCAM

on behalf of itself and the other Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the PSW Complaint (the “CWCAM Motion to Dismiss”). On April 11, 2016, PSW NYC LLC opposed the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss and cross-moved for a partial summary judgment on liability regarding allegations of breach of the 2010 Settlement Agreement (the “PSW Cross-Motion”). On May 5, 2016, the Defendants subsequently filed its reply and opposition to the PSW Cross-Motion. On August 23, 2016, oral arguments were provided to the PSW Court regarding the PSW Complaint, the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss and the PSW Cross-Motion and the PSW Court took such arguments under advisement. On October 31, 2016, the PSW Court issued an order granting the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss, denying the PSW Cross-Motion and dismissing the PSW Complaint with prejudice. Subsequently, PSW NYC LLC filed a notice of appeal relating to such order. On February 21, 2017, PSW NYC LLC filed its appeal and supporting brief arguing that the PSW Court erred by finding no breach of the assignment agreement and no fraudulent inducement. Oral argument was heard on May 4, 2017 at which point the court took the arguments under advisement. On May 25, 2017, the New York 1^st ~~Department appellate court affirmed the dismissal of all PSW claims and denied a request for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals on September 12, 2017.~~

~~On March 31, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding II LTD. (“RAIT Preferred Funding”) commenced a complaint (“RAIT Complaint”) with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “RAIT Court”), claiming it owns $18,500,000 of a mortgage loan secured by the development of the One Congress Street Property in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Loan~~”) and seeking (a) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT Preferred Funding is the directing lender under a co-lender agreement dated March 28, 2007 and a pooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007 (collectively, the “~~Operative Agreements~~”) and was the directing lender at the time of the improper modification of the Loan, (b) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT Preferred Funding has the right to terminate the special servicer, (c) monetary damages for the value of the bonds and fees paid to CWCAM as the special servicer of the Loan and (d) other things. On May 17, 2016, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Complaint (“~~Motion to Dismiss~~”) stating that the RAIT Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAIT Complaint are negated by affidavits and evidentiary materials submitted with the RAIT Complaint. On June 14, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (“~~Opposition~~”) stating that the claims in the RAIT Complaint were properly stated. On June 30, 2016, CWCAM filed a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss and in response to the Opposition, stating that each of CWCAM’s arguments is supported by the express language of the agreements between the parties, the documentary evidence and New York case law. On September 30, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding and CWCAM entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement (the “~~2016 Settlement”), which provides for a stay of the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation (the “Litigation Stay~~”) through August 25, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the 2016 Settlement, upon satisfaction of a term of the 2016 Settlement by August 25, 2017 (or such later date agreed to by the parties), the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice. On May 19, 2017 the Borrower repaid the Loan in accordance with the terms of the notes and satisfied the condition to dismissal with prejudice. RAIT has refused to dismiss the case and is claiming that the B Note should be paid in full. CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the Operative Agreements in good faith, and that the action should be dismissed with prejudice. On August 29, 2017, the RAIT Court granted leave to RAIT Preferred Funding to amend its complaint. On September 20, 2017, RAIT Preferred Funding filed an Amended Complaint (the “~~RAIT Amended Complaint~~”), which omits its original claims, adds Wells Fargo Bank as a defendant, and seeks (a) specific performance requiring repayment of the $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note or, in the alternative, monetary damages, including the $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note, in an amount to be determined at trial, (b) monetary damages on any fees paid to CWCAM as special servicer or Wells Fargo Bank as master servicer in connection with the borrower’s repayment of the Loan, (c) a declaratory judgment that RAIT Preferred Funding is entitled to recover the full $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note, (d) punitive damages against CWCAM, and (e) other things. On October 11, 2017, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (“~~CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint~~”) stating that the RAIT Amended Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAIT Amended Complaint are negated by the Operative Agreements and other admissible evidentiary materials. On November 13, 2017, Wells Fargo Bank filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (the “~~Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint~~”) and joined the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. On January 29, 2018, the court dismissed all claims but for breach of contract and discovery has commenced. CWCAM filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on March 18, 2019. This matter was settled and the case dismissed on May 15, 2019.

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 June 24, 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 Exhibit O 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 Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, which is being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction, are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit O to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 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 CGCMT 2014-GC21 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.

Item 15. ~~Exhibits,~~Exhibit and Financial Statement ~~Schedules~~Schedules.

(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.

33.3 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

33.12 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

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

34.3 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

34.12 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee of the Selig 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.