UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1

The Issuing Entity is filing this Form 10-K/A to replace Exhibits 31, 33(a)
and 34(a) to the original Form 10-K filed on April 2, 2007. American Security
Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance
Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.")
("Assurant Inc.") recently provided the Issuing Entity with a revised report on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
and a related attestation. In the original assessment previously provided to
the Issuing Entity, Assurant Inc. excluded Item 1122(d)(4)(xii) from the scope
of its assessment. Assurant Inc. recently provided the Issuing Entity with a
revised assessment of compliance that assesses Assurant Inc.'s compliance with
Item 1122(d)(4)(xii) and identifies material instance of non compliance with
this criterion. This material instance of non compliance is noted in this Form
10-K/A under "Additional Disclosure Items Pursuant to General Instruction J."
The Issuing Entity has included this revised assessment of compliance under
Exhibit 33(a), the related attestation under Exhibit 34(a) and a revised Rule
13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification under Exhibit 31. This Form 10-K/A does not
otherwise amend the original Form 10-K filed with the Commission on
April 2, 2007.

(Mark one)

/X/ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

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

Commission file number: 333-123741-15

ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL1
(exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

ACE Securities Corp.
(exact name of the depositor as registrant on behalf of the issuing
entity as specified in its charter)

DB Structured Products, Inc.
(exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)

Delaware 06-1442101
(State or other jurisdiction of Depositor
incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

ACE Securities Corp.
6525 Morrison Boulevard Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (704) 365-0569

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

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 X

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 X

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 X No ___

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to
Item 405 of Regulation S-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 Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not applicable.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer,
an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of
"accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer ___ Accelerated filer ___ Non-accelerated filer X

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

Yes ___ No X

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.

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. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

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.

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 9A(T). 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 PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTION J

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

None.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Credit Enhancement and Other Support,
except for certain Derivative Instruments (Information regarding
Significant Enhancement Providers Financial Information).

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 as described under
Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivative Instruments.

The significance percentage related to each entity or group of
affiliated entities providing derivative instruments described in
Item 1115 of Regulation AB is less than 10%.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

New Century Financial Corporation

DOL Investigation. On August 2, 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor,
Wage and Hour Division, or DOL, informed New Century Mortgage
Corporation ("New Century Mortgage"), an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of New Century Financial Corporation (the "Company"),
that it is conducting an investigation to determine whether New
Century Mortgage is in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA. The DOL narrowed the scope of its investigation to
overtime compensation paid to retail loan officers in an Irvine,
California operation. New Century Mortgage believes it is in
compliance with the FLSA and that it properly pays overtime wages.
In April 2005, New Century Mortgage provided requested documents
and awaits a response from the DOL.

Rubio. In March 2005, Daniel J. Rubio, a former retail loan officer
of New Century Mortgage, filed a class action complaint against
New Century Mortgage in the Superior Court of Orange County,
California. The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and that New Century
Mortgage engaged in unfair business practices in violation of the
California Labor Code. The complaint seeks recovery of unpaid wages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. New Century Mortgage filed
a motion to strike and demurrer to the complaint in May 2005. On
July 8, 2005, the court overruled the demurrer and granted the
motion to strike. A First Amended Complaint was filed in July 2005
and New Century Mortgage filed its answer in August 2005. In
December 2005, New Century Mortgage filed a motion to strike
portions of the complaint, which was granted in New Century
Mortgage's favor, limiting the statute of limitations for
plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one year. The court
reconsidered and reversed its ruling in May 2006. A Second Amended
Complaint was filed by plaintiff, adding a cause of action for
failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA. In July 2006,
mediation occurred, followed by New Century Mortgage's removal of
the case to the United States District Court, Central District of
California in August 2006. In September 2006, the court granted
New Century Mortgage's motion to strike, limiting the statute of
limitations for plaintiff's meal and rest period claims to one
year. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint was filed in October 2006.
In December 2006, the Court granted New Century Mortgage's motion
to strike the punitive damages allegations from the plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint and denied New Century Mortgage's motion
to dismiss the sixth cause of action for alleged wage statement
violations. In December 2006, the parties stipulated to plaintiff
filing a Fourth Amended Complaint adding plaintiffs John Hicks
and David Vizcarra.

Bonner. In April 2005, Perrie Bonner and Darrell Bruce filed a
class action lawsuit against New Century Mortgage and Home123
Corporation, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
("Home123") in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, or FCRA, claiming that New Century Mortgage and
Home123 accessed consumer credit reports without authorization
because the prescreened offers of credit did not qualify as firm
offers of credit. New Century Mortgage and Home 123 filed their
answer to the complaint on June 30, 2005. In September 2005,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on November
1, 2005, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The court never ruled on the motion for
judgment on the pleadings. In August 2006, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The class size is
limited to the Northern District of Indiana. On December 13, 2006,
the court heard oral argument in Indiana on the parties' summary
judgment motions. On March 9, 2007, the court ruled on the motion
for summary judgment that defendants' solicitation did not
constitute a "firm offer of credit", and ruled that plaintiff
Bonner's claim that the disclosure was not "clear and conspicuous"
was moot. On March 12, 2007, this action settled on a class-wide
basis (Northern District of Indiana). On March 16, 2007, the
parties moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court
has not yet ruled on the motion.

Phillips. In July 2005, Pamela Phillips filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 in
the District Court, Central District of California. Plaintiff
alleges violations of FCRA, claiming that the Company, New Century
Mortgage and Home123 accessed consumer credit reports without
authorization because the prescreened offers of credit did not
qualify as firm offers of credit. The case also alleges that
certain disclosures were not made in a clear and conspicuous manner.
The complaint seeks damages of not more than $1,000 for each
alleged violation, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs. The Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123 filed
a motion to dismiss certain claims in October 2005. In November
2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss, in part. In early
March 2006, the court, on its own motion, reversed its prior ruling
on the motion to dismiss citing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
recent decision in the Murray v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation case. On
November 14, 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification
proposing that the class be limited to all individuals throughout
Harris County, Texas whose consumer reports were obtained or used
by New Century Mortgage or Home123 in connection with a credit
transaction not initiated by them and who received the same written
solicitation to entered into a credit transaction received by
plaintiff. In late December 2006, plaintiff filed a Third Amended
Complaint to limit the class size to Harris County, Texas. On
January 22, 2007, the Company, New Century Mortgage and Home123
filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. On January 31, 2007, the Company, New Century
Mortgage and Home123 filed a Motion to Stay. On February 22, 2007,
the court denied the Motion to Stay. On March 11, 2007, this action
settled. The parties agreed to dismissal with prejudice of
individual claims and dismissal without prejudice of claims of
putative class members.

Jeppesen. In October 2005, Patricia and Stephen Jeppesen filed a
class action lawsuit against New Century Mortgage in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiffs allege
that New Century Mortgage violated the Indiana High Cost Loan Act
by allegedly making loans with fees greater than permitted by law
unless certain disclosures are made. The class is defined as all
persons who obtained a mortgage loan from New Century Mortgage
after January 1, 2005 on their principal residence in Indiana. A
second claim in the complaint alleges that New Century Mortgage
improperly charged a document preparation fee. On January 12, 2007,
the Office of the Attorney General, State of Indiana, issued a
no-action letter and, in response to a letter dated September 19,
2005 from plaintiff's counsel about alleged violations of the
Indiana Home Loan Practices Statute, concluded its inquiry and
declined to take any action against New Century Mortgage. In
February 2007, the parties reached a settlement on an individual
basis. On February 14, 2007, the court entered an order dismissing
this case and approving the Stipulation of Dismissal.

Forrest. In January 2006, Mary Forrest filed a class action lawsuit
against New Century Mortgage in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division. Plaintiff alleges
violations of FCRA, claiming that New Century Mortgage accessed
prescreened credit reports without authorization because the offers
of credit allegedly did not qualify as firm offers of credit. The
proposed class consists of persons with Wisconsin addresses to whom
New Century Mortgage sent a particular prescreened offer of credit
after November 20, 2004. In February 2006, New Century Mortgage
filed both its answer and a motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In June
2006, the court granted New Century Mortgage's motion to transfer
and ordered the case transferred from the U.S. District Court in
Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California.
In July 2006, New Century Mortgage filed a Notice of Related Case to
consolidate this matter with the Phillips class action. On March 11,
2007, this action settled. On March 20, 2007, a stipulation for
dismissal of individual claims dismissed with prejudice and claims
of putative class members dismissed without prejudice was filed with
the court.

Securities Class Action Litigation

On February 8, 2007, Avi Gold filed a securities class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers (the "Original Complaint"). The Original
Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose
material facts about the Company, which resulted in artificially
inflated market prices of the Company's common stock. The purported
class period is between April 7, 2006 and February 7, 2007. The
Original Complaint seeks money damages in favor of its purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities, the costs and
expenses of the action and other relief that may be granted by the
court.

The Company has also learned that seventeen additional purported
class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California between February 8, 2007 and March 16,
2007. These complaints, some of which the Company has not yet been
served with and which name the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as defendants, present in large degree the same legal
and factual issues as the Original Complaint and allege various
class periods, the longest of which is from April 7, 2006 to March 2,
2007. One of these class actions has been brought on behalf of the
holders of the Company's 9.125% Series A Cumulative Redeemable
Preferred Stock ("Series A Preferred Stock") and the holders of the
Company's 9.75% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series B Preferred Stock"). Another of these class actions has
been brought on behalf of the holders of the Company's Series B
Preferred Stock. The Company anticipates that similar actions on
behalf of holders of the Company's common stock, Series A Preferred
Stock and Series B Preferred Stock may be filed in the future and
does not undertake any obligation to update this disclosure for any
similar or related claims that may be made in this regard. The
Company intends to review the allegations in these complaints and
respond appropriately. The Company's management intends to
vigorously defend these claims; however, an unfavorable outcome in
these cases or future securities class action cases could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.

Shareholder Derivative Complaint
The Company was served with a shareholder derivative complaint on
March 1, 2007, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Orange. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust
enrichment, and violations of California Corporations Code 25402 and
seeks damages for breach, disgorgement, equitable relief, costs and
fees. The case is in the very preliminary stages. The Company has
also learned that five additional shareholder derivative actions
were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
between February 8, 2007 and March 16, 2007 and two additional
shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California during this
same time period. These complaints, some of which the Company has
not yet been served with and which name the Company and certain of
its officers and directors as defendants, present in large degree
the same legal and factual issues as the original shareholder
derivative complaint. The Company anticipates that similar actions
may be filed in the future and does not undertake any obligation to
update this disclosure for any similar or related claims that may be
made in this regard. The Company intends to review the allegations
in these complaints and respond appropriately.

U.S. Attorney's Office Investigation

On February 27, 2007, the Company received a letter from the United
States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
(the 'U.S. Attorney's Office") indicating that it was conducting a
criminal inquiry under the federal securities laws in connection with
trading in the Company's securities, as well as accounting errors
regarding the Company's allowance for repurchase losses. The Company
has subsequently received a grand jury subpoena requesting
production of certain documents. The Company intends to cooperate
with the requests of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

SEC Investigation

On March 7, 2007, the Company received a letter from the Pacific
Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
requesting that NCFC preserve certain documents. On March 12, 2007,
the Company received a letter from the staff of the Pacific Regional
Office of the SEC stating that the staff was conducting a
preliminary investigation involving the Company and requesting
production of certain documents. The staff of the SEC had also
previously requested a meeting with the Company to discuss the
events leading up to the Company's previous announcement of the need
to restate certain of its historical financial statements. The
Company intends to cooperate with the requests of the SEC.

State Regulatory Actions

The Company has been engaged in recent ongoing discussions with its
state regulators regarding the Company's funding constraints and the
impact on consumers who are in various stages of the loan
origination process with the Company. The Company has advised these
regulators that it has ceased accepting loan applications. In
addition, the Company has advised these regulators that at this
time, the Company and its subsidiaries are unable to fund any
mortgage loans, including mortgage loans for those consumers who
were already in the loan origination process with the Company. The
Company has been and is continuing to work cooperatively with these
regulators to mitigate the impact on the affected consumers,
including transferring pending loans and loan applications to other
mortgage lenders. The Company has also been providing daily reports
to its various regulators regarding the status of loans in process
in their states, as well as responding to ad hoc information
requests.

The Company received cease and desist orders from the States of
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York on March 13,
2007 (collectively, the "March 13 Orders"). New Century Mortgage
additionally received a Suspension Order from the state of New York
on March 13, 2007 (the "NCMC Suspension Order"). The NCMC Suspension
Order suspends New Century Mortgage's mortgage banking license in
the State of New York for a period not to exceed 30 days, pending
investigation. On March 14 and 15, 2007, the Company received
additional cease and desist orders from the States of Connecticut,
Maryland, Rhode Island and Tennessee (collectively, the "March 14-15
Orders"). The March 13 Orders and the March 14-15 Orders contain
allegations that certain of the Company's subsidiaries have engaged
in violations of applicable state law, including, among others,
failure to fund mortgage loans after closing. Additionally, on March
14, 2007, New Century Mortgage and Home123 entered into a Consent
Agreement and Order with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department
of Banking, Bureau of Supervision and Enforcement (the
"Pennsylvania Consent Agreement").

The March 13 Orders, the March 14-15 Orders and the Pennsylvania
Consent Agreement restrain the Company's subsidiaries from taking
certain actions, including, among others, engaging in alleged
violations of state law and taking new applications for mortgage
loans in the relevant jurisdiction. The March 13 Orders, the March
14-15 Orders and the Pennsylvania Consent Agreement also compel the
subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions, including the
creation of escrow accounts to hold any up front fees collected in
connection with pending mortgage applications, the transfer to other
lenders of the outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the provision of
regular information to the state regulators regarding the
subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
status of all outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans in that state. The cease and desist order received
from the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation on March 14
suspends the licenses of one or more of the Company's subsidiaries
and seeks to assess administrative penalties.

The Company and its subsidiaries requested hearings on the cease and
desist orders issued by regulators in Maryland, Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode Island on March 23, 2007, and in Tennessee on
March 27, 2007.

On March 14, 2007, the Attorney General of Ohio and the Ohio
Department of Commerce, Division of Financial Institution (together,
the "State") filed a lawsuit against the Company, New Century
Mortgage and Home123 (collectively, the "Defendants") on March 14,
2007 in Ohio state court (the "Ohio Complaint"). The Ohio Complaint
alleges that the Company has engaged in violations of applicable
state law, including, among others, failure to fund mortgage loans
after closing. Also on March 14, 2007, the court granted the State's
motion to enter a temporary restraining order, which was
subsequently modified by the court on March 16, 2007, against the
Defendants (as modified, the "TRO"). The TRO restrained the
Defendants from taking certain actions, including, among others,
(i) engaging in violations of state law, (ii) soliciting applicants
and taking new applications for mortgage loans in Ohio and (iii)
initiating, prosecuting or enforcing foreclosure actions in Ohio.
The TRO required the parties to confer with respect to restrictions
regarding foreclosure action and the sale, transfer or assignment of
loans more than 60 days delinquent. On March 26, 2007, the
Defendants filed a Motion for Dissolution of Modified Temporary
Restraining Order and Motion for an Emergency Hearing, and
Opposition to a Preliminary Injunction. On March 28, 2007, the
Defendants and the State reached agreement on a Stipulated
Preliminary Injunction effective for 90 days and submitted it for
court approval. The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction replaces the
TRO and provides for a stay of the litigation for 90 days. The
Stipulated Preliminary Injunction restrains the Defendants from
taking certain actions, including, among others, engaging in alleged
violations of state law and taking new applications for mortgage
loans. The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction also compels the
Defendants to take certain actions, including the transfer to other
lenders of any outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans, the placement in escrow of any upfront fees
collected in connection with pending mortgage applications, and the
provision of regular information to the State regarding the
Company's activities in Ohio, including the status of all
outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded mortgage loans. The
Stipulated Preliminary Injunction also requires the Defendants to
submit certain loans (and related information) as to which it
intends to foreclose to the State for the State to review. The State
may object to the Company proceeding with a particular foreclosure
and if the Company is unable to convince the State to permit it to
proceed, the foreclosure will not proceed for the duration of the
Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. The Stipulated Preliminary
Injunction also provides for the State to review and object to the
Defendants selling, transferring or assigning certain loans that are
more than 60 days delinquent.

On March 16, 2007, the Company received additional cease and desist
orders from the State of California (the "California Orders") and
certain of the Company's subsidiaries entered into consent
agreements with the State of Florida's Office of Financial
Regulation and the State of Washington's Department of Financial
Institutions, respectively, each dated March 16, 2007 (the "March 16
Agreements" and together with the California Orders, the "March 16
Orders and Consent Agreements").

The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements contain allegations that
certain of the Company's subsidiaries have engaged in violations of
state law, including, among others, failure to fund mortgage loans
after closing. The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements restrain
the Company's subsidiaries from taking certain actions, including,
among others, engaging in alleged violations of state law and taking
new applications for mortgage loans in the relevant jurisdiction.
The March 16 Orders and Consent Agreements also compel the
subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions, including the
creation of escrow accounts to hold any upfront fees collected in
connection with pending mortgage applications, the transfer to other
lenders of the outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the provision of
regular information to the state regulators regarding the
subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
status of all outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans in that state.

On March 16, 2007, Home123 received a suspension order (the "Home123
Suspension Order") from the State of New York Banking Department.
The Home123 Suspension Order contains allegations similar to those
included in the NCMC Suspension Order and further provides that
Home123's mortgage banking license in the State of New York has been
suspended for a period not exceeding 30 days, pending investigation.
The Company and Home123 are reviewing the Home123 Suspension Order
and accordingly have not yet determined whether they will appeal all
or any portion of the Home123 Suspension Order.

On March 20, 2007, the Company entered into a Combined Statement of
Charges and Consent Order with the State of Iowa and a Consent
Agreement and Order with the State of Maine Office of Consumer
Credit Regulation, Department of Professional and Financial
Regulation (together, the "March 20 Orders"). On March 21, 2007,
the Company entered into a Consent Order with the State of Michigan,
Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Office of Financial and
Insurance Services and a Consent Order with the State of Wyoming
Banking Commission (the "March 21 Orders"). On March 23, 2007, the
Company entered into a Consent Agreement and Order with the State of
Idaho Department of Finance (the "March 23 Order"). Similar to the
consent agreements described above, the March 20, 21 and 23 Orders
contain allegations that certain of the Company's subsidiaries have
engaged in violations of state law, including, among others, failure
to fund mortgage loans after closing. They restrain the Company's
subsidiaries from taking certain actions, including, among others,
engaging in alleged violations of state law and taking new
applications for mortgage loans in the relevant jurisdiction. They
also compel the subsidiaries to affirmatively take certain actions,
including the creation of escrow accounts to hold any upfront fees
collected in connection with pending mortgage applications, the
transfer to other lenders of the outstanding mortgage applications
and unfunded mortgage loans held by the subsidiaries, and the
provision of regular information to the state regulators regarding
the subsidiaries' activities in the applicable state, including the
status of all outstanding mortgage applications and unfunded
mortgage loans in that state.

The Company anticipates that cease and desist orders will continue
to be received by the Company and its subsidiaries from additional
states in the future and that the Company and its subsidiaries may
enter into additional consent agreements similar to those described
above. The Company does not undertake, and expressly disclaims, any
obligations to update this disclosure for any such additional cease
and desist orders or consent agreements or for any developments with
respect to any of the state regulatory actions described herein.

The Company intends to continue to cooperate with its regulators in
order to mitigate the impact on consumers resulting from the
Company's funding constraints.

Fremont Investment & Loan

On March 7, 2006, Fremont Investment & Loan, its parent, Fremont
General Corporation and the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
Fremont General Credit Corporation consented to the terms of a
cease and desist order issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation without admitting to the allegations contained therein.
The cease and desist order requires, among other things, Fremont to
cease and desist from the following:

(1) Operating with management whose policies and practices are
detrimental to Fremont; (2) operating Fremont without effective
risk management policies and procedures in place in relation to
Fremont's brokered subprime mortgage lending and commercial real
estate construction lending businesses; (3) operating with
inadequate underwriting criteria and excessive risk in relation to
the kind and quality of assets held by Fremont; (4) operating
without an accurate, rigorous and properly documented methodology
concerning its allowance for loan and lease losses; (5) operating
with a large volume of poor quality loans; (6) engaging in
unsatisfactory lending practices; (7) operating without an adequate
strategic plan in relation to the volatility of Fremont's business
lines and the kind and quality of assets held by Fremont; (8)
operating with inadequate capital in relation to the kind and
quality of assets held by Fremont; (9) operating in such a manner
as to produce low and unsustainable earnings; (10) operating with
inadequate provisions for liquidity in relation to the volatility
of Fremont's business lines and the kind and quality of assets held
by Fremont; (11) marketing and extending adjustable-rate mortgage
products to subprime borrowers in an unsafe and unsound manner that
greatly increases the risk that borrowers will default on the loans
or otherwise cause losses to Fremont, including (a) adjustable-rate
mortgage products that qualify borrowers for loans with low initial
payments based on an introductory rate that will expire after an
initial period, without adequate analysis of the borrower's ability
to repay at the fully indexed rate, (b) adjustable-rate mortgage
products containing features likely to require frequent refinancing
to maintain affordable monthly payment or to avoid foreclosure, and
(c)loans or loan arrangements with loan-to-value ratios approaching
or exceeding 100 percent of the value of the collateral; (12)making
mortgage loans without adequately considering the borrower's
ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms; (13)operating
in violation of Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, in that
Fremont engaged in transactions with its affiliates on terms and
under circumstances that in good faith would not be offered to, or
would not apply to, nonaffiliated companies; and (14) operating
inconsistently with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
Interagency Advisory on Mortgage Banking and Interagency Expanded
Guidance for Subprime Lending Programs. The cease and desist order
also requires Fremont to take a number of steps, including (1)
having and retaining qualified management; (2) limiting Fremont
General's and Fremont General Credit Corporation's representation
on Fremont's board of directors and requiring that independent
directors comprise a majority of Fremont's board of directors; (3)
revising and implementing written lending policies to provide
effective guidance and control over Fremont's residential lending
function; (4)revising and implementing policies governing
communications with consumers to ensure that borrowers are provided
with sufficient information; (5) implementing control systems to
monitor whether Fremont's actual practices are consistent with its
policies and procedures; (6) implementing a third-party mortgage
broker monitoring program and plan; (7) developing a five-year
strategic plan, including policies and procedures for diversifying
Fremont's loan portfolio; (8) implementing a policy covering
Fremont's capital analysis on subprime residential loans; (9)
performing quarterly valuations and cash flow analyses on Fremont's
residual interests and mortgage servicing rights from its
residential lending operation, and obtaining annual independent
valuations of such interests and rights; (10) limiting extensions
of credit to certain commercial real estate borrowers; (11)
implementing a written lending and collection policy to provide
effective guidance and control over Fremont's commercial real
estate lending function, including a planned material reduction in
the volume of funded and unfunded nonrecourse lending and loans for
condominium conversion and construction as a percentage of Tier I
capital; (12) submitting a capital plan that will include a Tier I
capital ratio of not less than 14% of Fremont's total assets; (13)
implementing a written profit plan; (14) limiting the payment of
cash dividends by Fremont without the prior written consent of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Commissioner of the
California Department of Financial Institutions; (15) implementing
a written liquidity and funds management policy to provide
effective guidance and control over Fremont's liquidity position
and needs; (16) prohibiting the receipt, renewal or rollover of
brokered deposit accounts without obtaining a Brokered Deposit
Waiver approved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; (17)
reducing adversely classified assets; and (18) implementing a
comprehensive plan for the methodology for determining the adequacy
of the allowance for loan and lease losses.

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

No applicable updates.

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

See Item 15.

Assurant, Inc. previously excluded the applicable servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d)(4)(xii) from the scope of its
assessment of compliance. Assurant, Inc. has now assessed its
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting
Period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and has
identified a material instance of noncompliance with that servicing
criterion. Specifically, Assurant, Inc. did not have, during the
Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the
information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to
determine compliance with Item 1122(d)(4)(xii). Accordingly,
Assurant, Inc. has restated its previous assessment for the
Reporting Period, which excluded evaluation of the criterion,
to include the criterion and reflect the material noncompliance as
a result of its assessment.

The 1122 statements for First American Real Estate Solutions of
Texas, L.P. (as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC) has
disclosed the following material instance of noncompliance with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of
Regulation AB applicable to the Company during year ended December
31, 2006. Account reconciliations for all asset-backed securities
related bank accounts were not prepared within 30 calendar days
after the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days
specified in the transaction agreements as required by Item
1122(d)(2)(vii)(B) of Regulation AB.

The 1122 statements for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(Corporate Trust Services) has disclosed material noncompliance with
criterion 1122(d)(3)(i), as applicable to the Company during the
twelve months ended December 31, 2006. Certain monthly investor or
remittance reports included errors in the calculation and/or the
reporting of delinquencies for the pool assets.

Although each servicing criterion required by Item 1122(d) of
Regulation AB is addressed in one or more of of the Assessment of
Compliance with Servicing Criteria and related Attestation Reports
included with this report, of GMAC Mortgage LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage
Corporation a Servicer, Assessment of Compliance and related
Attestation Report did not address each of the servicing criteria
that the Servicer was required to address under the terms of the
related Servicing Agreement. The Servicer has not identified such
failure to provide an Assessment and Attestation for these items as
a material failure to fulfill its obligations under the related
servicing agreement in the Servicer's Compliance Statement provided
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, because the Servicer asserts that
those items are not applicable to the Servicer.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

See Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a) Exhibits

(4) Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2006, among
ACE Securities Corp., as Depositor, GMAC Mortgage Corporation as a
Servicer and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as a Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator
and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee (incorporated
herein by reference from Exhibit 4.1 of the Current Report on Form
8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission).

(31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

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

<s> <c>
a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian <F1>
c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer <F1>
e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer <F1>
f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC <F1>
g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer <F1>
h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator <F1>
i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent <F1>
j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian <F1>

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

(35) Servicer compliance statement.

<s> <c>
a) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer <F1>
b) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer <F1>
c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer <F1>
d) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator <F1>

(b) See Exhibits identified in Paragraph (a) above.

<F1> Filed herewith.

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.

ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-SL1
(Issuing Entity)

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(Master Servicer)

/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President
(senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master servicer)

Date: May 27, 2008

Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.

(31) Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

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

<s> <c>
a) Assurant Inc. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
b) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Custodian
c) First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P. as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
d) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
e) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer
f) Regulus Group LLC as Sub-Contractor for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
g) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
h) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator
i) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Paying Agent
j) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian

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

(35) Servicer compliance statement.

<s> <c>

a) GMAC Mortgage, LLC f/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
b) Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer
c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
d) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator