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 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.
On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivativean action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedlyalleging 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 June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of andinvestors in ten RMBS trusts against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the benefitSouthern District of 544 private-label RMBS trustsNew York asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA)(“TIA”), breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and negligencetrust based on DBNTC and DBTCA’sDBNTC’s alleged failure to perform theirits duties as trusteestrustee for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequentlyRoyal Park’s complaint alleges that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed their statein part plaintiffs’ claims: the court complaintdismissed plaintiff’s TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a derivativemotion for class certification. On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to propose a redefined class. On May 1, 2017, Royal Park filed a renewed motion for class certification. On March 29, 2018, the court denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification with prejudice. On April 13, 2018, Royal Park filed a petition to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking appellate review of the district court’s denial of Royal Park’s motion for class certification. On August 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Royal Park’s petition for appellate review. Discovery is ongoing. On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class action complaint against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable accounting and class actiondeclaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in the other, ongoing Royal Park litigation. On October 10, 2017, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint. On August 13, 2018, the court issued an order: (i) staying Royal Park’s separate, additional case until the resolution of Royal Park’s underlying case; and (ii) denying DBNTC’s motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint without prejudice to the motion’s refiling once the stay is lifted.
On November 7, 2014, the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”), as an investor in 121 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalfagainst DBNTC as trustee of those trusts, alleging violations of the TIA and the New York Streit Act for DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties. On March 5, 2015, NCUA amended its complaint to assert claims as an investor in 97 of the benefit of 564 private-label121 RMBS trusts which substantially overlapped withthat were the trusts at issue insubject of its first complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of the state court action. TheTIA and Streit Act, as well as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith. NCUA’s complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8$17.2 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016,May 1, 2015, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017,July 31, 2018, the court granted in part andissued an order that, among other things, denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted theDBNTC’s motion to dismiss with respectwithout prejudice to plaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.its renewal. On January 26, 2017, the partiesAugust 31, 2018, NCUA filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017,letter informing the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breachit intends to: (i) drop all of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warrantyits claims as to 2160 of the 97 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcyat issue; (ii) drop its claims as to certain, but not all, certificates for 3 additional trusts; and the deadline(iii) move for assertingleave to file an amended complaint bringing claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.remaining 37 trusts at issue. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 26,October 5, 2018, PlaintiffsNCUA filed a motion for class certification. Theleave to file a second amended complaint that asserts claims as to only 37 of the 97 trusts that were originally at issue, and adds new claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in NCUA’s action and in other actions brought by investors against DBNTC for alleged breaches of its duties as an RMBS trustee. On November 5, 2018, DBNTC filed a motion is beingto stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. Both motions have been briefed by the parties. Discovery is ongoing.stayed.
On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The motion is being briefed by the parties. Discovery is ongoing.
On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by23, 2014, certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited that held RMBS certificates issued by 21 RMBS trusts filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in whichagainst DBNTC as trustee of the plaintiffs previouslytrusts, asserting claims for violation of the TIA and the Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, based on DBNTC’s alleged incorrectly that DBNTC servedfailure to perform its duties as trustee for all 43the trusts. On April 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating to an additional 34 trusts (for a total of 55 trusts) and amended their complaint for a second time on July 15, 2015 to include additional allegations and to drop their claim for negligent misrepresentation. In that complaint, plaintiffs alleged damages of over U.S. $527 million. On February 2, 2016, the court entered a stipulation signed by the parties to dismiss with prejudice claims relating to four of the 55 trusts, leaving 51 trusts at issue. DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed the majority of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims to proceed. The court denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that negligence claims were duplicative of breach of contract claims but denied the motion to dismiss to the extent plaintiffs alleged DBNTC violated extra-contractual duties. In addition, the court dismissed breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The court also denied the motion to dismiss claims for alleged violations of Sections 315(b) and 315(c) of the TIA, but dismissed claims under 316(b). Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ Streit Act claim. Following the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss, 46 trusts remained at issue. On May 13, 2016, DBNTC filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 20, 2016, the court ordered the parties’ stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims relating to three trusts, leaving 43 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 TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of the 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 previously dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG (see description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions are being briefed by the parties. Discovery is ongoing.
On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought byDecember 23, 2015, Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”), as an investor in 50 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which Commerzbank previouslyagainst DBNTC as trustee of the trusts, asserting claims for violations of the TIA and New York’s Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of the covenant of good faith, based on DBNTC’s alleged incorrectly that DBNTC servedfailure to perform its duties as trustee for all 50the trusts. Commerzbank alleges that DBNTC caused it 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 April 29, 2016, Commerzbank filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts the same claims as did the original complaint, and, like the original complaint, alleges that DBNTC caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On May 27, 2016, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 10, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Commerzbank’s claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and claim under the Streit Act, dismissing those claims with prejudice. The court also granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Commerzbank’s claim under the TIA as to the 46 trusts at issue.issue governed by pooling and servicing agreements, dismissing that claim with prejudice as to those 46 trusts. The court also granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, with respect to Commerzbank’s breach of contract claim as to ten trusts whose governing agreements limit the right to file suit under the governing agreements to certain specified parties, including the registered holder of a certificate issued by the trust. The court held that, although Commerzbank has not received authorization from the registered holder of the certificates at issue to file suit, it may still obtain that authorization from the registered holder. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. Therefore, with the exception of the claims relating to the ten trusts for which Commerzbank has not received authorization to file suit, Commerzbank’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence will proceed. Commerzbank’s claim under the TIA as to the four trusts governed by agreements other than pooling and servicing agreements will also proceed. On May 1, 2017, DBNTC filed an answer to the amended complaint. 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 previously dismissed Commerzbank’sits 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. Both motions are being briefed by the parties. Discovery is ongoing.
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 New York’sthe Streit Act, violation of the Trust Indenture Act,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, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.
It is DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s belief that they have no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s presentcurrent evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the seven immediately preceding six paragraphs) that would materially affect their ability to perform their duties as trustee under the indentureIndenture for this transaction.
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Nothing to report.
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
The following substitute information is provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1119 of Regulation AB. Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
The reports required by Item 1122(a) and (b) of, or relating to, all parties determined by the registrant to be participating in the servicing function with respect to the issuing entity are attached to this Form 10-K as Exhibits 33.1, 33.2, 34.1 and 34.2.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement.
The statements required by Item 1123 are attached to this Form 10-K as Exhibits 35.1 and 35.2.