UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
☒ | ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
or
☐ | TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
333-207132-15
(Commission File Number of issuing entity)
0001718304
(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-C4
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
333-207132
(Commission File Number of depositor)
0001258361
(Central Index Key Number of depositor)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)
Citi Real Estate Funding Inc.
(Central Index Key Number: 0001701238)
Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending, L.P.
(Central Index Key Number: 0001558761)
Ladder Capital Finance LLC
(Central Index Key Number: 0001541468)
German American Capital Corporation
(Central Index Key Number: 0001541294)
Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC
(Central Index Key Number: 0001592182)
(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
New York |
| 82-6713163 82-6712043 82-6694460 |
(State or other jurisdiction of organization of the issuing entity) |
| (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)
(212) 816-5614
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class | Trading Symbol(s) | Name of each exchange on which |
None |
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ☐ Yes ☒ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. ☒ Yes ☐ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).
Not Applicable
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer |
| ☐ |
|
| Accelerated filer |
| ☐ |
|
|
|
| ||||
Non-accelerated filer |
| ☒ |
|
| Smaller reporting company |
| ☐ |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| Emerging growth company |
| ☐ |
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). ☐ Yes ☒ No
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the 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 Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document is incorporated: (1) Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or information statement; and (3) Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).
Not Applicable
PART I
Item 1. Business.
Omitted.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Omitted.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2. Properties.
Omitted.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Omitted.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Omitted.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
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.
3
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Omitted.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Omitted.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Omitted.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Omitted.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Omitted.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Omitted.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
Omitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB
No mortgage loan in the pool assets for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2017-C4 constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB.
Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB
Disclosure from Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator:
Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as the Certificate Administrator of this commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) transactions. Certain of these Citibank as trustee related matters are disclosed herein.
On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (the “TIA”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on
4
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 Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court. In January 2015, the court closed plaintiffs’ original state court action. On September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. On April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 4, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the clerk to close the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on August 3, 2018. Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2018. On June 7, 2019, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal following the parties’ filing of a stipulation withdrawing the case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.
On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee. This case includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action, and one additional trust. The investors assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of New 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 June 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for discontinuance of the action and dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
On August 19, 2015, the FDIC as receiver for a failed financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York. This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee. The FDIC asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the TIA. Citibank jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A. entities that have also been sued by the 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 Citibank’s 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 and that joint motion was fully briefed as of May 3, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The FDIC’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was April 22, 2019. The FDIC has not appealed.
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 Certificate Administrator under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for this CMBS transaction.
Disclosure from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator and as custodian for the Station Place III mortgage loan, the Capital Centers II & III mortgage loan and the Walgreens Witkoff Portfolio mortgage loan under the JPMDB 2017-C7 PSA, the Bank of America Office Campus Building 600 mortgage loan under the UBS 2017-C4 PSA, the Mall of Louisiana mortgage loan under the BANK 2017-BNK7 PSA, the 50 Varick Street mortgage loan under the UBS 2017-C5 PSA, and the Chelsea Multifamily Portfolio mortgage loan and the Westin Crystal City mortgage loan under the CCUBS 2017-C1 PSA:
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
5
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 agreement. With respect to such litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.
Item 1119 of Regulation AB
Provided previously in the prospectus of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on October 31, 2017 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB
The reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports are attached hereto under Item 15.
The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank National Association (“Midland”) discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:
Material Instance of Noncompliance
In certain instances, the Schedule AL Files (Item 1125 of Regulation AB) were not reported in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements, in conflict with Item 1122(d)(3)(i): “Reports to investors, including those to be filed with the Commission, are maintained in accordance with the transaction agreements and applicable Commission requirements. Specifically, such reports: (A) Are prepared in accordance with timeframes and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements”. The noncompliance consisted of omitted or inaccurately reported fields as described in (1) and (2) below. (1) In connection with other enhancements Midland made to its manual Schedule AL process, starting in April 2019, Midland developed and implemented new Schedule AL reporting templates for each applicable CMBS transaction that closed prior to April 2019 and for each applicable CMBS transaction going forward. Related to this, Midland made certain template setup errors, along with related and other manual inputting of information errors, and the errors were not identified prior to submission of the applicable Schedule AL Files in certain cases due to breakdowns in quality control. (2) In one applicable transaction, the related Schedule AL File for a given month was not saved properly resulting in the prior month's Schedule AL File being submitted for the given month instead of the correct Schedule AL File.
The identified instances did not involve the servicing of the assets backing the asset-backed securities covered in this Form 10-K.
Steps Taken to Remedy the Material Instance of Noncompliance
Midland’s Schedule AL reporting process was enhanced in April of 2019, however, the process remained manual throughout the 2019 calendar year. Errors relating to certain Schedule AL Files during 2019 were identified during the related audit. Following identification, Midland made staffing changes and additional enhancements and improvements to its processes and procedures to support its Schedule AL reporting obligations and expects to move to an automated solution for this process.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB
The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
(a) | List the following documents filed as a part of the report: |
| (1) | Not Applicable |
| (2) | Not Applicable |
| (3) | Exhibits listed below are either included or incorporated by reference as indicated below: |
6
| Description | |
|
| |
4.1 |
| |
|
| |
4.2 |
| |
|
| |
4.3 |
| |
|
| |
4.4 |
| |
|
|
|
|
1 | The Station Place III mortgage loan, which represented approximately 5.1% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Capital Centers II & III mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.2% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Walgreens Witkoff Portfolio mortgage loan, which represented approximately 1.7% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Station Place III mortgage loan, the Capital Centers II & III mortgage loan, the Walgreens Witkoff Portfolio mortgage loan, and each of the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the JPMDB 2017-C7 PSA. |
2 | The Pleasant Prairie Premium Outlets mortgage loan, which represented approximately 4.2% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Corporate Woods Portfolio mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.6% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Pleasant Prairie Premium Outlets mortgage loan, the Corporate Woods Portfolio mortgage loan, and each of the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CGCMT 2017-P8 PSA. |
3 | The Bank of America Office Campus Building 600 mortgage loan, which represented approximately 1.0% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Bank of America Office Campus Building 600 mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the UBS 2017-C4 PSA. |
7
| ||
|
| |
4.6 |
| |
|
| |
4.7 |
| |
|
| |
4.8 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
31 |
| |
|
| |
33 |
| Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. |
|
| |
|
4 | The Mall of Louisiana mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.9% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Mall of Louisiana mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the BANK 2017-BNK7 PSA. |
5 | The IGT Reno mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.6% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The IGT Reno mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CD 2017-CD5 PSA. |
6 | The 50 Varick Street mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.6% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 50 Varick Street mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the UBS 2017-C5 PSA. |
7 | The Chelsea Multifamily Portfolio mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.6% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Westin Crystal City mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.5% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Chelsea Multifamily Portfolio mortgage loan, the Westin Crystal City mortgage loan and each of the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CCUBS 2017-C1 PSA. |
8
| ||
|
| |
33.2 |
| |
|
| |
33.3 |
| |
|
| |
33.4 |
| |
|
| |
33.5 |
| |
|
| |
33.6 |
| |
|
| |
33.7 |
| |
|
| |
33.8 |
| |
|
| |
33.9 |
| |
|
| |
33.10 |
| |
|
| |
33.11 |
| |
|
|
|
33.12 |
| |
|
| |
33.13 |
| |
|
| |
33.14 |
| |
|
| |
33.15 |
| |
|
| |
33.16 |
| |
|
| |
9
| ||
|
| |
33.18 |
| |
|
| |
33.19 |
| |
|
| |
33.20 |
| |
|
| |
33.21 |
| |
|
| |
33.22 |
| |
|
| |
33.23 |
| |
|
| |
33.24 |
| |
|
| |
33.25 |
| |
|
| |
33.26 |
| |
|
| |
33.27 |
| |
|
| |
33.28 |
| |
|
| |
33.29 |
| |
|
| |
33.30 |
| |
|
| |
33.31 |
| |
|
| |
33.32 |
| |
|
| |
10
| ||
|
| |
33.34 |
| |
|
| |
33.35 |
| |
|
| |
33.36 |
| |
|
| |
33.37 |
| |
|
| |
33.38 |
| |
|
| |
33.39 |
| |
|
|
|
33.40 |
| |
|
| |
33.41 |
| |
|
| |
33.42 |
| |
|
| |
33.43 |
| |
|
| |
33.44 |
| |
|
| |
33.45 |
| |
|
| |
33.46 |
| |
|
| |
33.47 |
| |
|
| |
33.48 |
| |
|
| |
33.49 |
| |
|
| |
11
| Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. | |
|
| |
34.1 |
| |
|
| |
34.2 |
| |
|
| |
34.3 |
| |
|
| |
34.4 |
| |
|
| |
34.5 |
| |
|
|
|
34.6 |
| |
|
| |
34.7 |
| |
|
| |
34.8 |
| |
|
| |
34.9 |
| |
|
| |
34.10 |
| |
|
| |
34.11 |
| |
|
| |
34.12 |
| |
|
| |
34.13 |
| |
|
| |
34.14 |
| |
|
| |
34.15 |
| |
|
| |
12
| ||
|
| |
34.17 |
| |
|
| |
34.18 |
| |
|
|
|
34.19 |
| |
|
| |
34.20 |
| |
|
| |
34.21 |
| |
|
| |
34.22 |
| |
|
| |
34.23 |
| |
|
| |
34.24 |
| |
|
| |
34.25 |
| |
|
| |
34.26 |
| |
|
| |
34.27 |
| |
|
| |
34.28 |
| |
|
| |
34.29 |
| |
|
| |
34.30 |
| |
|
| |
13
| ||
|
|
|
34.32 |
| |
|
| |
34.33 |
| |
|
| |
34.34 |
| |
|
| |
34.35 |
| |
|
| |
34.36 |
| |
|
| |
34.37 |
| |
|
| |
34.38 |
| |
|
| |
34.39 |
| |
|
| |
34.40 |
| |
|
| |
34.41 |
| |
|
| |
34.42 |
| |
|
| |
34.43 |
| |
|
| |
34.44 |
| |
|
| |
34.45 |
| |
|
|
|
34.46 |
| |
|
| |
14
| ||
|
| |
34.48 |
| |
|
| |
34.49 |
| |
|
| |
35 |
| Servicer compliance statements.8 |
|
| |
35.1 |
| |
|
| |
35.2 |
| |
|
| |
35.3 |
| Servicer compliance statement, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator |
|
| |
35.4 |
| Servicer compliance statement, Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as servicing function participant |
|
| |
35.5 |
| |
|
| |
35.6 |
| |
|
| |
35.7 |
| |
|
| |
35.8 |
| |
|
| |
35.9 |
| |
|
| |
35.10 |
| |
|
| |
35.11 |
| |
|
|
|
35.12 |
| |
|
| |
35.13 |
| |
|
| |
35.14 |
| |
|
8 | This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statement of KeyBank National Association, as special servicer for the Pleasant Prairie Premium Outlets mortgage loan and the Corporate Woods Portfolio mortgage loan under the CGCMT 2017-P8 PSA, because KeyBank National Association is an unaffiliated party that services less than 10% of the pool assets of the issuing entity, and therefore is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB. |
15
|
| |
35.15 |
| |
|
| |
35.16 |
| |
|
| |
35.17 |
| |
|
| |
35.18 |
| |
|
| |
35.19 |
| |
|
| |
35.20 |
| |
|
| |
35.21 |
| |
|
| |
35.22 |
| |
|
| |
35.23 |
| |
|
| |
35.24 |
| |
|
| |
99.1 |
| |
|
| |
99.2 |
| |
|
|
|
99.3 |
| |
|
| |
99.4 |
| |
|
| |
16
| ||
|
| |
99.6 |
| |
(b)The exhibits required to be filed by Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above.
(c)Not Applicable
17
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Date: March 27, 2020
|
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (Depositor) |
|
/s/ Richard Simpson |
Richard Simpson, President |
18