Item 1. Business.
Omitted.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Omitted.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties.
Omitted.
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Omitted.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.
Not applicable.
PART II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Omitted.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Omitted.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
Omitted.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Omitted.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Omitted.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
Omitted.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Omitted.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
PART III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Omitted.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Omitted.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
Omitted.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
Omitted.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
Omitted.
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB
No mortgage loan in the pool assets for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P6 constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB.
Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB
Disclosure from Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator:
Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as the Certificate Administrator of this commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) transactions. Certain of these Citibank as trustee related matters are disclosed herein.
On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (the “TIA”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on Citibank’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the 48 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw this action. On the same day, a smaller subset of similar plaintiff investors in 27 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court. In January 2015, the court closed plaintiffs’ original state court action. On September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. On April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017. Briefing on those motions was completed on August 4, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the clerk to close the case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on August 3, 2018. Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018. Plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2018. On June 7, 2019, the Second Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal following the parties’ filing of a stipulation withdrawing the case with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.
On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee. This case includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action, and one additional trust. The investors assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of New York’s Streit Act (the “Streit Act”). Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016. On June 27, 2017, the state court issued a decision, dismissing the event of default claims, mortgage-file-related claims, the fiduciary duty claims, and the conflict of interest claims. The decision sustained certain breach of contract claims including the claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties, a claim related to robo-signing, and the implied covenant of good faith claim. Citibank appealed the lower court’s decision, and on January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the claims related to robo-signing and the implied covenant of good faith, but allowed plaintiffs’ claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties to proceed. On June 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for discontinuance of the action and dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.
On August 19, 2015, the FDIC as receiver for a failed financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York. This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee. The FDIC asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the TIA. Citibank jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A. entities that have also been sued by the FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and these cases have all been consolidated in front of Judge Carter. On September 30, 2016, the court granted Citibank’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for reargument or relief from judgment from the court’s dismissal order. On July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the motion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action. He denied reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave to amend the complaint by October 9, 2017. The FDIC subsequently requested an extension of time to file its amended complaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8, 2017. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and that joint motion was fully briefed as of May 3, 2018. On March 20, 2019, the court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The FDIC’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was April 22, 2019. The FDIC has not appealed.
There can be no assurances as to the outcome of litigation or the possible impact of litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Citibank denies liability and continues to vigorously defend against these litigations. Furthermore, neither the above-disclosed litigations nor any other pending legal proceeding involving Citibank will materially affect Citibank’s ability to perform its duties as Certificate Administrator under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for this CMBS transaction.
Disclosure from Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee:
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 U.S. 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 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. As of March 1, 2020, both motions for summary judgment have been briefed and are awaiting decision by the court.
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. As of March 1, 2020, both motions for summary judgment have been briefed and are awaiting decision by the court.
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, 2020, 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.
Disclosure from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as certificate administrator and as custodian for the 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, the 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan under the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, the Potomac Mills mortgage loan under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA, the Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan under the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA, the Easton Town Center mortgage loan under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA and the Quantum Park mortgage loan under the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA:
Beginning on June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The complaints against Wells Fargo Bank alleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought included money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. In November 2018, Wells Fargo Bank reached an agreement, in which it denied any wrongdoing, to resolve such claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts at issue. On May 6, 2019, the court entered an order approving the settlement agreement. Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning several RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are not covered by the agreement. With respect to such litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.
Item 1119 of Regulation AB
Provided previously in the prospectus of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on December 15, 2016 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 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)
List the following documents filed as a part of the report:
(1)
Not Applicable
(2)
Not Applicable
(3)
Exhibits listed below are either included or incorporated by reference as indicated below:
The 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan, which represented approximately 8.2% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CD 2016-CD2 PSA.
The 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan, which represented approximately 6.3% 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 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA.
The Potomac Mills 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 Potomac Mills mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA.
The Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.8% 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 Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA.
The Hyatt Regency Jersey City mortgage loan, which represented approximately 3.8% 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 Hyatt Regency Jersey City mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the CGCMT 2016-P5 PSA.
The Easton Town Center mortgage loan, which represented approximately 2.5% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Easton Town Center mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA.
The Quantum Park mortgage loan, which represented approximately 5.5% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one or more companion loan(s) that are held outside the issuing entity. The Quantum Park mortgage loan and the related companion loan(s) are serviced pursuant to the WFCM 2016-C37 PSA.
Pursuant to Instruction 3 to Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor for the Fresno Fashion Fair mortgage loan under the JPMDB 2016-C4 PSA are not included in this report on Form 10-K because Pentalpha Surveillance LLC performed activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to 5% or less of the pool assets of the issuing entity.
This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statements of (i) KeyBank National Association, as special servicer for the 8 Times Square & 1460 Broadway mortgage loan under the CD 2016-CD2 PSA, (ii) Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer for the 681 Fifth Avenue mortgage loan under the MSC 2016-UBS12 PSA, (iii) AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC, as Potomac Mills special servicer for the Potomac Mills mortgage loan under the CFCRE 2016-C6 PSA and (iv) AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC, as special servicer for the Easton Town Center mortgage loan under the BBCMS 2016-ETC TSA, because each of KeyBank National Association, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC and AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC is an unaffiliated party that services less than 10% of the pool assets of the issuing entity, and therefore is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB.
(b)
The exhibits required to be filed by Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above.
(c)
Not Applicable
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.
Date: March 27, 2020
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
(Depositor)
/s/ Richard Simpson
Richard Simpson, President