msb17c33_10ka-2018.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Note - Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their obligations under those Sections.

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.

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 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 X (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting 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).

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.

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 purpose of this Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2019 (the “Original Form 10-K”), is to (i) file a revised assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities with respect to Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC (replacing the document previously filed as Exhibits 33.20 and 33.21 to the Original Form 10-K) and (ii) replace the attestation report of NDNB Assurance LLP on Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC’s assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities with the attestation report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, dated October 18, 2019, on Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC’s assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities (replacing the document previously filed as Exhibits 34.20 and 34.21 to the Original Form 10-K). No other changes have been made to the Original Form 10‑K. This Amendment No. 1 does not reflect subsequent events occurring after the original filing date of the Original Form 10-K.

The MSBAM 2017-C33 mortgage pool includes the following mortgage loans, each of which is serviced pursuant to a separate pooling and servicing agreement (each, an “Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement”):

• the Pentagon Center mortgage loan, which is serviced pursuant to the GSMS 2017-GS6 pooling and servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4.4;

• the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan, which is serviced pursuant to the CGCMT 2017-P7 pooling and servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4.2;

• the D.C. Office Portfolio mortgage loan and the Ralph's Food Warehouse Portfolio mortgage loan, which are serviced pursuant to the BANK 2017-BNK4 pooling and servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4.3; and

• the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan, which is serviced pursuant to the MSC 2017-H1 pooling and servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4.5.

Except as set forth below, each of the parties to each pooling and servicing agreement listed in the Exhibit Index both (1) participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB and (2) constitutes a servicer that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB:

• The trustee under a pooling and servicing agreement has a nominal role with respect to the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement. The trustee’s only servicing function is the contingent obligation to make certain advances if the master servicer under such pooling and servicing agreement fails to do so, while all other servicing functions are performed by other parties. The trustee under each of the pooling and servicing agreements listed in the Exhibit Index has confirmed to the registrant that it has not made any such contingent advances during the reporting period, and consequently, each such trustee does not participate in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, nor does it perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• The certificate administrator under a pooling and servicing agreement performs various payment administration functions solely for the securitization governed by such pooling and servicing agreement and the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement and does not have any obligations with respect to any other transaction. Consequently, the certificate administrator under an Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement does not participate in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, nor does it perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• The operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement represents the interests of senior certificateholders in the transaction governed by such pooling and servicing agreement and is responsible for monitoring the performance of the special servicer under such pooling and servicing agreement and producing certain reports to certificateholders relating to the resolution of the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement. The operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement does not have any obligations with respect to any other transaction and is solely obligated to perform loan reporting functions with respect to the securitization governed by such pooling and servicing agreement. Consequently, the operating advisor under an Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement neither participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB nor performs the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB. In addition, while the operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement has certain reporting obligations in respect of the related mortgage pool, it has no obligation to collect or disburse funds in respect of the mortgage pool or to administer any of the underlying mortgage loans. Consequently, the operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, but is not responsible for the “management or collection of the pool assets or making allocations or distributions to holders of the asset-backed securities” within the meaning of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB and does not perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• The asset representations reviewer under a pooling and servicing agreement has a limited obligation to review certain delinquent mortgage loans after a specified delinquency threshold has been met and the required percentage of certificateholders vote to direct a review of such delinquent mortgage loans, and has no obligation to collect or disburse funds in respect of the mortgage pool, to administer any of the underlying mortgage loans or to perform any servicing function. Consequently, the asset representations reviewer under a pooling and servicing agreement does not participate in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, is not responsible for the “management or collection of the pool assets or making allocations or distributions to holders of the asset-backed securities” within the meaning of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB and does not perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is the master servicer under the master servicer under the GSMS 2017-GS6 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Pentagon Center mortgage loan is currently serviced, and the master servicer under MSC 2017-H1 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan is currently serviced. Because Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is not the MSBAM 2017-C33 master servicer, is not affiliated with any sponsor and services only the Pentagon Center mortgage loan and the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan, which collectively constitute more than 5% but less than 10% of the mortgage pool, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as GSMS 2017-GS6 master servicer and MSC 2017-H1 master servicer, constitutes a reporting “servicing function participant” for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction 3 to Item 1122, but does not constitute a reporting “servicer” for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction to Item 1123.

• LNR Partners, LLC, is the special servicer under the MSC 2017-H1 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan is serviced. Because LNR Partners, LLC is not the MSBAM 2017-C33 special servicer, is not affiliated with any sponsor and services only the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan, which constitutes less than 5% of the mortgage pool, LNR Partners, LLC, as MSC 2017-H1 special servicer, does not constitute a reporting “servicing function participant” for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction 3 to Item 1122, and does not constitute a reporting “servicer” for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction to Item 1123.

• Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, is the custodian under the CGCMT 2017-P7 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan is serviced. Because Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is not the MSBAM 2017-C33 custodian, is not affiliated with any sponsor and services only the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan, which constitutes more than 5% but less than 10% of the mortgage pool, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as CGCMT 2017-P7 custodian, constitutes a reporting “servicing function participant” for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction 3 to Item 1122, but does not constitute a reporting “servicer” for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction to Item 1123.

In addition, each of the following parties engaged the services of certain servicing function participants and sub-servicers for the reporting period, as set forth below:

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, engaged the services of KeyBank National Association, as a sub-servicer in respect of the entire mortgage pool for the reporting period.

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, engaged the services of (i) CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. and National Tax Search, LLC, in each case as a servicing function participant in respect of the entire mortgage pool for the reporting period, and (ii) Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC as a servicing function participant in respect of 1.8% of the mortgage pool for the reporting period.

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer under the CGCMT 2017-P7 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan is serviced, engaged the services of CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., National Tax Search, LLC and Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, in each case as a servicing function participant in respect of the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan for the reporting period.

• Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer under the BANK 2017-BNK4 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the D.C. Office Portfolio and Ralph’s Food Warehouse Portfolio mortgage loans are serviced, engaged the services of CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. and National Tax Search, LLC, in each case as a servicing function participant in respect of the D.C. Office Portfolio and Ralph’s Food Warehouse Portfolio mortgage loans for the reporting period.

PART I

Item 1.	Business.
	Omitted.
Item 1A.	Risk Factors.
	Omitted.
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments.
	None.
Item 2.	Properties.
	Omitted.
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings.
	Omitted.
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures.
	Omitted.

PART II

Item 5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
	Omitted.
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data.
	Omitted.
Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
	Omitted.
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
	Omitted.
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
	Omitted.
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
	Omitted.
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures.
	Omitted.
Item 9B.	Other Information.
	None.

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.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider Financial Information.

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any enhancement or other support for the certificates 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 for the certificates as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

The registrant knows of no legal proceeding pending against the sponsors, depositor, trustee, issuing entity, servicer contemplated by Item 1108(a)(3) of Regulation AB, originator contemplated by Item 1110(b) of Regulation AB, or other party contemplated by Item 1100(d)(1) of Regulation AB, or of which any property of the foregoing is the subject, that is material to security holders, other than as disclosed in the prospectus of the issuing entity filed in a 424(b)(2) filing dated March 12, 2017, and other than as follows:

Since June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors have filed civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The complaints against Wells Fargo Bank alleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and 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. Wells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the agreement. With respect to 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 RMBS trusts.

On February 23, 2016, a certificateholder of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2007-CIBC18 (the “CIBC18 Trust”) filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, against KeyBank National Association and Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (collectively, the “CIBC18 Servicers”). The suit was filed derivatively on behalf of the CIBC18 Trust. The action was brought in connection with the CIBC18 Servicers’ determination of the fair value of a loan, secured by the Bryant Park Hotel in New York City, held by the CIBC18 Trust and sold to an assignee of the CIBC18 Trust’s directing certificateholder, pursuant to an exercise of the fair value option set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement governing the CIBC18 Trust. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the action or the possible impact of the litigation on the CIBC18 Servicers. Both CIBC18 Servicers deny liability, believe that they performed their obligations in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement applicable to the CIBC18 Trust, and have contested the claims asserted against them, filing a motion to dismiss the case. On November 28, 2016, the motion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiff certificateholder filed an appeal, and the appeal is pending. In the first quarter of 2018, the case was fully dismissed and is no longer pending.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain 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 SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock California 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 Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“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 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 November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“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 December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with 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. As of March 1, 2019, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.

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.

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

In addition to the information regarding this Item that has been disclosed in the prospectus of the issuing entity filed in a 424(b)(2) filing dated March 12, 2017, (i) Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, the master servicer under the GSMS 2017-GS6 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Pentagon Center mortgage loan is serviced, is also the master servicer under the MSC 2017-H1 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Gateway Crossing mortgage loan is serviced; (ii) Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, the special servicer under the GSMS 2017-GS6 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Pentagon Center mortgage loan is serviced, is also the MSBAM 2017-C33 special servicer; and (iii) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the MSBAM 2017-C33 custodian is also the custodian under each Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement (other than the CGCMT 2017-P7 pooling and servicing agreement) pursuant to which the outside serviced mortgage loans (other than the Key Center Cleveland mortgage loan) are currently serviced.

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

The 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 discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:

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 numbers due to the following: (1) the initial setup files contained information at the asset level, and Midland was required to manually compile the information to present it at the loan level as required by Schedule AL; and (2) certain reporting requirements required manual processing by Midland, including the use of various data computation formulas, quality control checks and analysis.

The identified instances did not involve the servicing of assets included in this securitization.

Midland is currently remediating the Schedule AL reporting for the CMBS transactions found to be incorrect, and will be making improvements to its systems, processes and procedures to support its Schedule AL reporting obligations.

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

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

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.

New York	38‑4032096 38‑4032097 38‑7170562
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification Numbers)