UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20202022

or

For the transition period from to

333-207132-21

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

0001764759

(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)

Benchmark 2019-B9 Mortgage Trust

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

333-207132

(Commission File Number of depositor)

0001258361

(Central Index Key Number of depositor)

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Citi Real Estate Funding Inc.

(Central Index Key Number: 0001701238)

German American Capital Corporation

(Central Index Key Number: 0001541294)

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

(Central Index Key Number: 0000835271)

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

c/o Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich Street 14^{Trading, 4}th Floor

New York, New York 10013

(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)

(212) 816-5614

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.

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

☐ Yes ☒ No

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

☐ Yes ☒ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

☒ Yes ☐ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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 has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). ☐ Yes ☒ No

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

Not Applicable

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Not Applicable

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document is incorporated: (1) Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or information statement; and (3) Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to security holders for fiscal year ended December 24, 1980).

Not Applicable

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1 The Kawa Mixed Use Portfolio mortgage loan, which represented approximately 4.1% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Staples Strategic Industrial mortgage loan, which represented approximately 4.0% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 10 Brookline Place mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.6% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 1421 West Shure Drive mortgage loan, which represented approximately 1.4% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Kawa Mixed Use Portfolio mortgage loan, the Staples Strategic Industrial mortgage loan, the 10 Brookline Place mortgage loan, the 1421 West Shure Drive mortgage loan, and each of the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the Benchmark 2019-B9 PSA.

2 The Aventura Mall mortgage loan, which represented approximately 1.7% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Aventura Mall mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the Aventura Mall Trust 2018-AVM TSA.

3 The Liberty Station Retail mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.4% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Liberty Station Retail mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the JPMCC 2019-COR4 PSA.

4 This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as certificate administrator under the Benchmark 2018-B8 PSA, the Aventura Mall Trust 2018-AVM TSA and the JPMCC 2019-COR4 PSA, because the certificate administrator under each such pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement does not perform any activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.

5 This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statements of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as certificate administrator under the Benchmark 2018-B8 PSA, the Aventura Mall Trust 2018-AVM TSA and the JPMCC 2019-COR4 PSA, because the certificate administrator under each such pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Omitted.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Omitted.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Omitted.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Omitted.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Omitted.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.[Reserved]

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.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.

Not applicable.

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 Accountant Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB

No mortgage loan in the pool assets for Benchmark 2019-B9 Mortgage Trust constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB.

Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB

Disclosure from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo Bank”) (i) as trustee and custodian under (i) Benchmark 2018-B8 PSA pursuant to which the Kawa Mixed Use Portfolio mortgage loan, the Staples Strategic Industrial mortgage loan, the 10 Brookline Place mortgage loan and the 1421 West Shure Drive mortgage loan are serviced, (ii) as custodian under the Aventura Mall Trust 2018-AVM TSA pursuant to which the Aventura Mall mortgage loan is serviced, and (iii) as trustee and custodian under the JPMCC 2019-COR4 PSA pursuant to which the Liberty Station Retail mortgage loan is serviced:

Beginning on June 18,

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited (Phoenix Light) and certain related entities filed a group of institutional investors filed civil complaintscomplaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S.United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for certaina number of residential mortgage backedmortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”)(RMBS) trusts. The complaints againstComplaints raising similar allegations have been filed by Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state court. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, alleged that theN.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors, and assertedplaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee'strustee’s alleged failure to: (i)to 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 damagesIn July 2022, the district court dismissed Phoenix Light’s claims and certain of the claims asserted by Commerzbank AG, and subsequently entered judgment in an unspecified amount, reimbursementeach case in favor of expenses, and equitable relief. In November 2018, Wells Fargo Bank, reachedN.A. In August 2022, Phoenix Light and Commerzbank AG appealed the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company previously settled two class actions filed by institutional investors and an action filed by the National Credit Union Administration with similar allegations. In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed substantially similar lawsuits in New York state court alleging Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, failed to take appropriate actions upon learning of defective mortgage loan documentation.

Disclosure from CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as special servicer under the Benchmark 2018-B8 PSA pursuant to which the Kawa Mixed Use Portfolio mortgage loan is serviced and (ii) the Aventura Mall Trust 2018-AVM TSA pursuant to which the Aventura Mall mortgage loan is serviced:

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

On December 17, 2015, U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee under five pooling and servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, (ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, (iii) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, (iv) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and (v) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 commenced a proceeding with the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota (the “State Court”) for a declaratory judgment as to the proper allocation of certain proceeds (“Disputed Proceeds”) received by CWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property in New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property. The petition requests the State Court to instruct the trustee, the trust beneficiaries, and any other interested parties as

to the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute penalty interest and/or the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute gain-on-sale proceeds, with respect to each trust. On February 24, 2016, CWCAM made a limited appearance with the State Court to file a motion to dismiss this proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction, mootness, standing and forum non conveniens. On July 19, 2016, the State Court denied CWCAM’s motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2016, the action was removed to federal court in Minnesota (“Federal Court”). On October 21, 2016, the Federal Court held a hearing on the motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY Court”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2017, the Federal Court reserved the determination on the motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to remand the matter to state court and granted the motion to transfer the proceeding to the SDNY Court. Cross motions for judgment on the pleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to decide the case based on the pleadings and the SDNY Court ordered discovery. All fact discovery was completed in December, 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15, 2019. The parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment, and on March 19, 2020, the SDNY Court entered an opinion and order in which it granted summary judgment in CWCAM’s favor and held that CWCAM was entitled to the entire amount of penalty interest and that CWCAM’s determination of Yield Maintenance was correct. In the 127-page opinion, the SDNY Court found for CWCAM on every issue presented by the trustee’s petition, namely, that the funds in dispute constitute penalty interest and yield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the amount of penalty interest and yield maintenance was correctly calculated. An appeal of the SDNY Court’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on June 21, 2021. On July 14, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a decision affirming in part and reversing in part the SDNY Court’s decision and remanding to the SDNY Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY’s Court holding that Penalty Interest and Yield Maintenance are paid before Gain-On-Sale Proceeds. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings that portion of the SDNY Court’s decision related to approximately $67.2 million in interest on advances. On January 13, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which it denied any wrongdoing,(among other things) they agreed to resolve such claimsstipulate that the amount of interest on a classwide basisadvances that accrued on or before June 3, 2014 is $27.5 million, and that CWCAM would pay that amount into escrow for distribution to certificateholders upon the entry of an order by the Court approving the settlement. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the 271 RMBS trusts, at issue.provided notice of the settlement to all parties in interest via a notice program approved by the Court. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March 16, 2023.

On December 1, 2017, a complaint against CWCAM and others was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-9463 (the “Original Complaint”). The gravamen of the Original Complaint alleged breaches of a contract and fiduciary duties by CWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in its capacity as collateral manager for the collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapital Cobalt Vr, Ltd. In total, there are 14 counts pled in the Original Complaint. Of those 14, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 6,23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a substantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., Index No. 653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”). The gravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York. In total there are 16 counts pled in the New Complaint. Of those 16 counts, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, 1 count seeks a declaratory judgement that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contracts in question and 1 count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the declaratory judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons was not served on the defendants until July 13, 2018 and July 16, 2018. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the court on July 31, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint in its entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court entered an order approvinggranting defendants’ motion almost in its entirety, dismissing 11 of the settlement agreement. Separate lawsuits16 counts and partially dismissing 2 additional counts. Of the remaining counts, 2 are asserted against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegationsCWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice of appeal relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and on September 26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM attempting to address deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissed by certain other institutional investors concerning several RMBS truststhe August 20, 2019 order. CWCI and CWCAM filed its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2019. The court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and on October 23, 2020, the court granted the motion dismissing the amended claims. On November 30, 2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd filed a notice of appeal relating to the October 23, 2020 dismissal order. On April 27, 2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAM that were part of the August 20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal of two counts for breach of the Collateral Management Agreement against CWCI. CWCI sought leave to file an appeal of the decision. The plaintiff also sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the claims against CWCAM. Both requests for leave were denied by the First Department. On May 15, 2020, CWCI and CWCAM filed a motion to renew its motion to dismiss as to 4 of the remaining counts (including the remaining two counts against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment), based on a decision entered by Judge Failla in a trust instruction proceeding in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York federalawarding summary judgment in favor of CWCAM. On September 7, 2021, the court denied the motion to renew. CWCI and state court are not coveredCWCAM filed a notice of appeal, which they perfected by the settlement agreement.

In addition to the foregoing cases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”) and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixisfiling of their own breaches, failedopening brief on July 1, 2022. On November 15, 2022, the First Department affirmed the court’s denial of the motion to properly overseerenew. On October 1, 2021, CWCI and CWCAM moved to reargue the primary servicers, and faileddenial of the motion to adhererenew (or alternatively, the motion to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionallydismiss) with respect to certain of Cobalt’s claims, including the remaining 2 claims against CWCAM, based on the First Department’s April 27, 2021 decision. On March 24, 2022, the court denied the relief sought in the motion

allegesto reargue. CWCI and CWCAM have appealed the court’s decision on the motion to reargue and filed their opening brief on July 11, 2022. The appeal was dismissed as being non-appealable on August 30, 2022. CWCAM believes that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bankit has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomuraperformed its obligations under the related pooling and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representationservicing agreements in good faith and warranty breaches.

With respect to each of the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claimsremaining allegations in the New Complaint are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the related RMBS trusts.merit.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB

Provided previously in the prospectus of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on February 14, 2019 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB

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

Item 1123 of Regulation AB

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.