UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, ~~2020~~2021 or

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

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number of the issuing entity: 333-171508-03

Central Index Key Number of the issuing entity: 0001548266

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7

(exact name of the issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the depositor: 0001004158

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

(exact name of the depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001541502

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company

(exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001555524

LoanCore Capital Markets LLC

(exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)

(formerly known as Jefferies LoanCore LLC)

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001541001

Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.

(exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001682511

Starwood Mortgage Funding I LLC

(exact name of the sponsor as specified in its charter)

(formerly known as Archetype Mortgage Funding I LLC)

New York
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization of

the issuing entity)

38-3880056

38-3880057

38-3880058

38-3880059

38-3880060

38-3880061

38-7047664

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Numbers)

c/o Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

as Certificate Administrator

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD

(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)

21045

(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(212) 902-1000

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

Title of each class	Trading Symbol(s)	Name of each exchange on which registered
None

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o 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. o 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 o No

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).

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Large accelerated filer o Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer ⌧ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company o

Emerging growth company o

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. o

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. o

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

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company acts as trustee of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the trustee is required to provide an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria solely with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB (regarding advances of funds or guarantees regarding collections, cash flows or distributions, and any interest or other fees charged for such advances, are made, reviewed and approved as specified in the transaction agreements). However, during the reporting period, the trustee did not perform any servicing function with respect to the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB. The master servicer or the special servicer, to the extent required, performed the servicing function identified with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, and each such party included Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB in the assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountant’s attestation report for the subject transaction. As a result, this Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria of the trustee. One or more other servicers of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement have delivered one or more assessments of compliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports from CoreLogic ~~Commercial Real Estate Services~~Solutions, ~~Inc. and National Tax Search,~~ LLC. ~~These~~This ~~entities~~entity was ~~were~~ engaged by the master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to remit tax payments received from the escrow accounts of borrowers to local ~~taxing~~ taxing authorities, to report tax amounts due, to verify tax parcel information, and to verify non-escrow tax payments. These servicing functions are included within the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB. Therefore, under the principles-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, ~~these~~this ~~vendors~~vendor is ~~are~~a “~~servicers~~servicer” for the purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. See Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation report and servicer compliance statement from Computershare Trust Company, National Association (“CTCNA”). CTCNA was engaged by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”), in its capacity as certificate administrator and custodian, to perform certain specified servicing functions identified in the assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports. Wells Fargo engaged CTCNA in connection with the sale of Wells Fargo’s corporate trust services business to CTCNA and its affiliates. Further, under the principles-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, this party is a “servicer” for the purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB. See Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

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

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 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB

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

No single obligor represents 10% or more of the pool assets held by the issuing entity.

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

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1114(a) of Regulation AB.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

The registrant knows of no material pending legal proceeding involving the trust or any party related to the trust, other than routine litigation incidental to the duties of those respective parties, and the following, with respect to CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as ~~trustee~~Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as ~~certificate~~Certificate ~~administrator~~Administrator and ~~as custodian~~Custodian.

~~Deutsche~~From ~~Bank~~time ~~Trust~~to time, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, a Delaware ~~Company~~limited ~~Americas~~liability company (“~~DBTCA~~CWCAM”), is a party to lawsuits and ~~Deutsche~~other legal ~~Bank~~proceedings ~~National~~as ~~Trust~~part ~~Company~~of its duties as a special servicer (~~“DBNTC”)~~e.g., ~~have~~enforcement ~~been~~of ~~sued~~loan byobligations) ~~investors~~and/or arising in ~~civil~~the ~~litigation~~ordinary ~~concerning~~course ~~their~~of business. Other ~~role~~than as set forth in the following paragraphs, there are ~~trustees~~currently no legal proceedings pending, and no legal proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, against CWCAM or of ~~certain~~which ~~residential~~any ~~mortgage-backed~~of ~~securities~~its property ~~(“RMBS”)~~is ~~trusts.~~the subject, that are material to the certificateholders.

On ~~June~~ 18December 17, ~~2014~~2015, aU.S. ~~group~~Bank ofNational ~~investors~~Association, ~~including~~the trustee ~~funds~~under ~~managed~~five bypooling ~~Blackrock~~and ~~Advisors,~~servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia Bank ~~LLC,~~Commercial ~~PIMCO~~Mortgage Trust 2007-~~Advisors~~C30, ~~L.P.~~(ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, (iii) ~~and~~Wachovia ~~others~~Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, ~~filed~~(iv) anML-CFC ~~action~~Commercial Mortgage ~~against~~Trust ~~DBNTC~~2007-5 and ~~DBTCA in~~(v) ~~New~~ML-CFC ~~York~~Commercial ~~State~~Mortgage ~~Supreme~~Trust ~~Court~~2007-6 ~~alleging~~commenced a ~~that~~proceeding ~~DBNTC~~with ~~and~~the ~~DBTCA~~Second ~~failed~~Judicial toDistrict ~~perform purported~~Court ~~duties~~of Ramsey County, Minnesota as(the ~~trustees~~“State Court”) for ~~544~~a ~~private-label~~declaratory ~~RMBS~~judgment ~~trusts,~~as to ~~enforce~~the ~~breaches~~proper allocation of ~~representations~~certain proceeds (“Disputed Proceeds”) received by CWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and ~~warranties~~Stuyvesant Town asproperty toin ~~mortgage~~New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property. The petition requests ~~trusts~~the ~~and~~State Court to ~~enforce~~instruct ~~breaches~~the bytrustee, ~~servicers~~the oftrust ~~their~~beneficiaries, ~~mortgage~~and ~~loan~~any ~~servicing~~other ~~obligations~~interested ~~for~~parties ~~the~~as ~~trusts. During~~to the ~~course~~amount of the ~~litigation~~Disputed Proceeds, if any, that ~~plaintiffs~~constitute ~~dismissed~~penalty interest and/or the ~~case~~amount ~~from~~of ~~New~~the ~~York~~Disputed ~~State~~Proceeds, ~~Supreme~~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 ~~refiled~~forum ~~two~~non conveniens. On July 19, 2016, the State Court ~~separate~~denied ~~cases~~CWCAM’s motion to dismiss. On July 22, ~~one~~2016, the action was removed to federal court in ~~the~~Minnesota U(“Federal Court”).S. 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 (~~the~~ “~~BlackRock~~ SDNY ~~Case~~Court”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the ~~other~~motion into dismiss. On March 14, 2017, the ~~Superior~~Federal Court ofreserved the determination on the motion to ~~California~~hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, ~~Orange~~denied ~~County~~the motion (to remand the ~~“BlackRock~~matter ~~California~~to ~~Case”)~~state court and granted the motion to transfer the proceeding to the SDNY Court. Cross motions for judgment on the ~~Pursuant~~pleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to adecide ~~settlement~~the ~~among~~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, ~~the~~and ~~BlackRock~~on March 19, 2020, the SDNY ~~Case~~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 ~~dismissed~~determination of Yield Maintenance was correct. In the 127-page opinion, the SDNY Court found for CWCAM on ~~December~~every 6issue presented by the trustee’s petition, ~~2018~~namely, that the funds in dispute constitute penalty interest and yield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the ~~BlackRock~~amount ~~California~~of ~~Case~~penalty interest and yield maintenance was correctly calculated. An appeal of the ~~dismissed~~SDNY Court’s decision was taken on ~~January~~April 1129, ~~2019~~2020. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on June 21, 2021. The parties await the decision of the appeals court.

On ~~September~~ 27December 1, 2017, ~~DBTCA~~a complaint against CWCAM and others was filed ~~added~~in asthe aUnited ~~defendant~~States toDistrict aCourt ~~case~~for ~~brought~~the bySouthern ~~certain~~District of New York ~~special~~styled ~~purpose~~as ~~entities~~CWCapital ~~including~~Cobalt ~~Phoenix~~Vr ~~Light~~Ltd. SFv. ~~Limited~~CWCapital inInvestments ~~the~~LLC, UNo.S. ~~District~~17-cv-9463 ~~Court~~(the ~~for~~“Original Complaint”). The gravamen of the Original Complaint ~~Southern~~alleged ~~District~~breaches of ~~New~~a ~~York~~contract and fiduciary duties by CWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in ~~which~~its capacity as collateral manager for the ~~plaintiffs~~collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapital ~~previously~~Cobalt ~~alleged~~Vr ~~incorrectly~~Ltd. ~~that~~In ~~DBNTC~~total, ~~served~~there asare ~~trustee~~fourteen counts pled in the Original Complaint. Of those fourteen, five claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding ~~all~~and 43abetting breach of ~~the~~fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. ~~trusts~~ On atMay ~~issue~~23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On ~~September~~June 2728, ~~2017~~2018, ~~plaintiffs~~CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a ~~third~~substantially ~~amended~~ similar complaint ~~that~~in ~~names~~the ~~DBTCA~~Supreme asCourt aof ~~defendant~~the inState ~~addition~~of New toYork, ~~DBNTC~~County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. ~~DBTCA~~ v. CWCapital ~~serves~~Investments asLLC, ~~trustee~~Index ~~for~~No. ~~one~~653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”). The gravamen of the 43New ~~trusts~~Complaint atis ~~issue. DBNTC~~the ~~serves~~same as the previous complaint filed ~~trustee~~in the United State District Court for the ~~other~~Southern 42District ~~trusts~~of atNew ~~issue~~York. ~~Plaintiffs’~~ In ~~third~~total, ~~amended complaint~~there ~~brings~~are ~~claims~~sixteen ~~for~~counts ~~violation~~pled ofin the UNew Complaint.S. Of ~~Trust~~those sixteen ~~Indenture~~counts, ~~Act~~five ofclaims ~~1939 (“TIA”);~~were ~~breach~~asserted ofagainst ~~contract;~~CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty;, ~~negligence~~conversion and ~~gross~~unjust enrichment, one count seeks a ~~negligence;~~declaratory ~~violation~~judgment ofthat ~~New~~the ~~York’s~~plaintiff ~~Streit~~has ~~Act;~~the right to enforce the contracts in question and ~~breach~~one ofcount seeks an injunction requiring the ~~covenant~~defendants ofto ~~good~~recognize ~~faith~~the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. ~~However~~ On January 11, in2019, the ~~third~~plaintiff ~~amended~~dismissed ~~complaint,~~with ~~plaintiffs~~prejudice the ~~acknowledge~~declaratory ~~that~~judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons were not served on the defendants until July 13, ~~before~~2018 ~~DBTCA~~and July 16, 2018. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was ~~added~~denied by the court on July 31, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the ~~case~~New Complaint in its entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court ~~dismissed plaintiffs~~entered an order granting defendants’ ~~TIA~~motion ~~Act~~almost in ~~claims~~its entirety, ~~negligence~~dismissing eleven of the sixteen counts and ~~gross~~partially dismissing ~~negligence~~two ~~claims~~additional counts. Of the remaining counts, ~~Streit~~two ~~Act~~are ~~claims,~~asserted ~~claims~~against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of ~~the~~fiduciary ~~covenant~~duty and unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice of ~~good~~appeal ~~faith~~relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and ~~certain~~on September ~~theories~~26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM ofattempting ~~plaintiffs’~~to ~~breach~~address deficiencies relating to certain of ~~contract~~the claims dismissed by the August 20, 2019 order. CWCI and ~~plaintiffs~~CWCAM ~~only~~filed ~~include~~their ~~these claims~~Motion to Dismiss ~~preserve~~the ~~any~~amended ~~rights~~complaint on ~~appeal~~October 28, 2019. ~~Plaintiffs~~The ~~allege~~court ~~damages~~heard argument ofon the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and ~~“hundreds~~on ofOctober ~~millions~~23, of2020, ~~dollars~~the court granted the motion dismissing the amended claims.” On November 1330, ~~2017~~2020, ~~DBNTC~~CWCapital ~~and~~Cobalt ~~DBTCA~~ Vr Ltd. filed ana ~~answer~~notice of appeal relating to the ~~third~~October ~~amended~~23, ~~complaint~~2020 dismissal order. On ~~December~~April 727, ~~2018,~~ ~~DBNTC~~2021, ~~and~~the ~~DBTCA~~First ~~filed~~Department aaffirmed ~~motion~~the ~~for~~dismissal ~~summary~~as ~~judgment. Also~~to onclaims ~~December~~against 7,CWCAM ~~2018~~that were part of the August 20, ~~plaintiffs~~2019 dismissal, ~~jointly~~but ~~with~~reversed ~~Commerzbank~~the AGdismissal ~~(see~~of two ~~description~~counts for breach of ~~Commerzbank~~the Collateral Management Agreement against ~~case~~CWCI. CWCI ~~below),~~has ~~filed~~sought aleave ~~motion~~to file an appeal of the decision. Both requests for ~~partial~~leave ~~summary~~were ~~judgment~~denied by the First Department. AsThe plaintiff has also sought leave to appeal the dismissal of ~~March~~the 1,claims against CWCAM. ~~2021,~~CWCAM ~~both~~believes ~~motions~~that ~~for~~it ~~summary~~has ~~judgment~~performed ~~have~~its ~~been~~obligations ~~briefed~~under ~~and~~the ~~are~~related ~~awaiting~~pooling ~~decision~~and byservicing agreements in good faith and the ~~court~~remaining allegations in the New Complaint are without merit.

On ~~November~~ ~~30,~~January ~~2017~~24, ~~DBTCA~~2016 ~~was~~PSW ~~added~~NYC asLLC commenced a ~~defendant~~complaint to(the a“PSW ~~case~~Complaint”) ~~brought~~with bythe Supreme Court of ~~Commerzbank~~the AGState of New York, County of New York (the “~~Commerzbank~~PSW Court”) inagainst ~~the~~Bank of UAmerica, N.SA. ~~District~~as ~~Court~~trustee ~~for~~under the ~~Southern~~pooling ~~District of~~and ~~New~~servicing ~~York,~~agreements infor Wachovia ~~which~~Bank ~~Commerzbank~~Commercial ~~previously~~Mortgage ~~alleged~~Trust ~~incorrectly~~2007-C30 ~~that~~and ~~DBNTC~~COBALT CMBS Commercial ~~served~~Trust 2007-C2, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee ~~for~~under ~~all~~the 50pooling ofand servicing ~~the~~agreements ~~trusts~~for atWachovia ~~issue. On~~Bank ~~November~~Commercial 30Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, ~~2017~~ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 (collectively, ~~Commerzbank~~the ~~filed~~“PSW aTrusts”), ~~second~~PCV-M ~~amended~~Holdings ~~complaint~~LLC ~~that~~and CWCapital ~~names~~Asset ~~DBTCA~~Management LLC, individually and as aspecial servicer for the ~~defendant~~PSW Trusts (collectively, the “Defendants”), seeking either (a) damages in ~~addition~~an amount to ~~DBNTC. DBTCA~~be ~~serves~~determined asby ~~trustee~~the ~~for~~PSW 1Court ofbut alleged by the 50plaintiffs to ~~trusts~~be atapproximately ~~issue. DBNTC~~$500,000,000, ~~serves~~such asamount ~~trustee~~being ~~for~~ the ~~other~~amount 49PSW ~~trusts~~NYC atLLC alleges ~~issue. Commerzbank’s~~would ~~second~~have ~~amended~~been ~~complaint~~recovered ~~brings~~on ~~claims~~certain ~~for~~mezzanine ~~violation~~loans (the “PCVST Mezzanine ofLoans”) related to the ~~TIA;~~Peter ~~breach~~Cooper ofVillage ~~contract;~~and ~~breach~~Stuyvesant ofTown ~~fiduciary~~property ~~duty;~~(the “PCVST ~~negligence;~~Property”) ~~violation~~in New York City which PSW NYC LLC sold to an entity ofrelated to the ~~Streit~~Defendants ~~Act;~~pursuant ~~and~~to ~~breach~~a ofsettlement agreement related to certain prior litigation (the ~~covenant~~“2010 ofSettlement ~~good~~Agreement”) ~~faith. However,~~or in(b) the rescission of the ~~second~~2010 ~~amended~~Settlement ~~complaint,~~Agreement ~~Commerzbank~~which ~~acknowledges~~would ~~that~~result in, ~~before~~among ~~DBTCA~~other ~~was~~things, the ~~added~~rescission toof the ~~case,~~sale of the ~~court~~PCVST ~~dismissed~~Mezzanine ~~Commerzbank’s~~Loans ~~TIA~~and ~~claims~~a claim for certain proceeds from the ~~trusts governed~~sale byof ~~pooling~~the ~~and~~PCVST ~~servicing~~Property. PSW ~~agreements,~~NYC asLLC ~~well~~alleges asthat the ~~its~~Defendants ~~Streit~~procured ~~Act~~the ~~claims~~ 2010 Settlement Agreement by fraud and ~~claims~~further ~~for~~that the ~~breach~~terms of the ~~covenant~~2010 ofSettlement ~~good~~Agreement ~~faith~~were breached by the Defendants. On February 26, 2016, CWCAM on behalf of itself and ~~Commerzbank~~the ~~only~~other Defendants ~~includes~~filed ~~these~~a ~~claims~~motion to ~~preserve~~dismiss ~~any~~the ~~rights~~PSW onComplaint ~~appeal. The~~(the ~~second~~“CWCAM Motion to Dismiss”). ~~amended~~ On ~~complaint~~April ~~alleges~~11, ~~that~~2016, ~~DBNTC~~PSW ~~and~~NYC ~~DBTCA~~LLC ~~caused~~opposed ~~Commerzbank~~the CWCAM Motion to ~~suffer~~Dismiss and ~~“hundreds~~cross-moved for a partial summary judgment on liability regarding allegations of ~~millions~~breach of ~~dollars~~the in2010 ~~losses,”~~Settlement ~~but~~Agreement (the ~~complaint~~“PSW ~~does~~Cross-Motion”). On ~~not~~May ~~include a~~5, ~~demand~~2016, ~~for~~the ~~money~~Defendants ~~damages~~subsequently infiled atheir ~~sum~~reply ~~certain~~and opposition to the PSW Cross-Motion. On ~~January~~August 2923, ~~2018~~2016, ~~DBNTC~~oral arguments ~~and~~were ~~DBTCA~~provided ~~filed~~to anthe ~~answer~~PSW Court regarding the PSW Complaint, the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss and the ~~second~~PSW ~~amended~~Cross-Motion ~~complaint~~and the PSW Court took such arguments under advisement. On ~~December~~October 731, 2016, the PSW Court issued an order granting the CWCAM ~~2018~~Motion to Dismiss, ~~DBNTC~~denying the PSW Cross-Motion and ~~DBTCA~~dismissing the PSW Complaint with prejudice. Subsequently, PSW NYC LLC filed a ~~motion~~notice ~~for~~of appeal ~~summary~~relating ~~judgment~~to such order. ~~Also~~ On ~~on December~~February 721, ~~2018~~2017, ~~Commerzbank,~~PSW ~~jointly~~NYC ~~with~~LLC filed its appeal and supporting brief arguing that the ~~Phoenix~~PSW ~~Light~~Court ~~plaintiffs,~~erred by finding no ~~filed~~breach aof ~~motion~~the ~~for~~assignment ~~partial~~agreement ~~summary~~and ~~judgment~~no fraudulent inducement. As Oral argument ofwas ~~March~~heard 1on May 4, ~~2021~~2017 at which point the court took the arguments under advisement. On May 25, ~~both~~2017, the New York First Department ~~motions~~appellate ~~for~~court ~~summary~~affirmed ~~judgment~~the ~~have~~dismissal ~~been~~of ~~briefed~~all PSW claims and ~~are~~denied ~~awaiting~~a ~~decision~~request for byleave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals on September 12, ~~court~~2017.

On ~~December~~ 30March 31, ~~2015~~2016, ~~IKB~~RAIT ~~International~~Preferred Funding II, SLtd.A. in(“RAIT Preferred ~~Liquidation~~Funding”) ~~and~~commenced ~~IKB~~a ~~Deutsche~~complaint (“RAIT Complaint”) with ~~Industriebank~~the ~~A.G.~~Supreme ~~(collectively~~Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “~~IKB~~RAIT Court”), asclaiming anit ~~investor~~owns in$18,500,000 37of ~~RMBS~~a ~~trusts~~mortgage loan secured by the development of the One Congress Street Property in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Loan”) ~~filed~~and seeking (a) ~~summons~~a ~~with~~declaratory ~~notice~~judgment instating that RAIT Preferred Funding is the ~~Supreme~~directing ~~Court~~lender under a co-lender agreement dated March 28, 2007 and a pooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007 (collectively, the “Operative Agreements”) and was the directing lender at the time of the ~~State~~improper modification of ~~New~~the ~~York~~Loan, ~~New~~(b) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT ~~York~~Preferred ~~County~~Funding has the right to terminate the special servicer, ~~against~~(c) ~~DBNTC~~monetary damages for the value of the bonds and ~~DBTCA~~fees paid to CWCAM as ~~trustees~~the special servicer of the ~~trusts~~Loan and (d) other things. On May 27 17, 2016, ~~IKB~~CWCAM ~~served~~filed ~~its~~a motion ~~complaint~~to ~~asserting~~dismiss ~~claims~~the ~~for~~RAIT ~~breach~~Complaint of(“Motion ~~contract,~~to Dismiss”) stating that ~~breach~~the RAIT Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of ~~fiduciary~~the ~~duty~~RAIT Complaint are negated by affidavits and evidentiary materials submitted with the RAIT Complaint. On June 14, ~~breach~~2016, RAIT Preferred Funding filed a Memorandum of ~~duty~~Law in Opposition to ~~avoid~~the ~~conflicts~~Motion ofto ~~interest,~~Dismiss ~~violation~~(“Opposition”) ofstating that the ~~Streit~~claims ~~Act~~in the RAIT Complaint were properly stated. On June 30, ~~violation~~2016, CWCAM filed a reply in support of the ~~TIA~~Motion to Dismiss and in response to the Opposition, ~~violation~~stating that each of ~~Regulation~~CWCAM’s ~~AB,~~arguments ~~and~~is supported ~~violation~~by ofthe ~~Section~~express 9language of the ~~Uniform~~agreements ~~Commercial~~between ~~Code~~the parties, the documentary evidence and New York case law. ~~IKB~~On ~~alleges~~September ~~that~~30, 2016, RAIT Preferred ~~DBNTC~~Funding and ~~DBTCA~~CWCAM ~~are~~entered ~~liable~~into a confidential Settlement Agreement (the “2016 Settlement”), which provides for ~~over~~a ~~U.S.~~stay ~~$268~~of ~~million~~the inRAIT ~~damages. On~~Preferred Funding ~~October~~litigation 5,(the ~~2016~~“Litigation Stay”) through August 25, ~~DBNTC~~2017. Pursuant ~~and~~to ~~DBTCA~~the terms of the 2016 Settlement, ~~together~~upon ~~with~~satisfaction ~~several~~of ~~other~~a ~~trustees~~term of ~~defending~~the ~~lawsuits~~2016 Settlement by ~~IKB~~August 25, ~~filed~~2017 a(or ~~joint~~such ~~motion~~later date agreed to ~~dismiss~~by the parties), the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation will be dismissed with prejudice. On ~~January~~May 619, 2017 ~~and~~the ~~June~~Borrower ~~20,~~repaid ~~2017,~~the ~~IKB~~Loan ~~voluntarily~~in ~~dismissed~~ accordance with ~~prejudice~~the ~~all~~terms ~~claims~~of as the notes and satisfied the condition to ~~seven~~dismissal ~~trusts~~with prejudice. OnRAIT ~~January~~has ~~27,~~refused ~~2021,~~to dismiss the ~~court~~case ~~granted~~and is claiming that the B Note should be paid in ~~part~~full. CWCAM ~~and~~believes ~~denied~~that it has performed its obligations under the Operative Agreements in ~~part~~good ~~DBNTC~~faith, and ~~DBTCA’s~~that ~~motion~~the toaction should ~~dismiss~~be dismissed with prejudice. ~~The~~On ~~court~~August ~~granted~~29, 2017, the ~~motion~~RAIT Court granted leave to ~~dismiss~~RAIT ~~with~~Preferred ~~respect~~Funding to ~~IKB’s~~amend ~~claims~~its ~~for~~complaint. On September ~~violations~~20, of2017, RAIT Preferred Funding filed an Amended Complaint (the ~~Streit~~“RAIT Amended ~~Act~~Complaint”), which omits its original claims, adds Wells Fargo Bank ~~Regulation~~as ABa defendant, and ~~Section~~seeks 9(a) specific performance requiring repayment of the $18,500,000 ~~Uniform~~principal ~~Commercial~~amount ~~Code~~of the B Note or, asin ~~well~~the asalternative, ~~certain~~monetary ~~aspects~~damages, including the $18,500,000 principal amount of ~~IKB~~the B Note, in an amount to be determined at trial, (b) monetary damages on any fees paid to CWCAM as special servicer or Wells Fargo Bank as master servicer in connection with the borrower’s ~~claims~~repayment ~~for~~of ~~breach~~the ofLoan, ~~contract~~(c) a declaratory judgment that RAIT Preferred Funding is entitled to recover the full $18,500,000 ~~breach~~principal amount of ~~fiduciary~~the ~~duty~~B Note, (d) punitive damages against CWCAM, and (e) other things. ~~violation~~On October 11, 2017, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (“CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint”) stating that the RAIT Amended Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the ~~TIA~~RAIT Amended Complaint are negated by the Operative Agreements and other admissible evidentiary materials. ~~The~~On ~~court~~November ~~denied~~13, 2017, Wells Fargo Bank filed a motion to dismiss the ~~remainder~~RAIT ofAmended Complaint (the ~~motion~~“Wells Fargo Motion to ~~dismiss~~Dismiss Amended Complaint”) and joined the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. ~~IKB’s~~On ~~remaining~~January 29, 2018, the court dismissed all claims ~~for~~but for breach of contract, ~~breach~~and ~~of fiduciary~~discovery ~~duty,~~commenced. CWCAM ~~breach~~filed ofa ~~duty~~Motion tofor Summary ~~avoid~~Judgment ~~conflicts~~on ofMarch ~~interest~~18, ~~and~~2019. This ~~violation~~matter of was settled and the case ~~TIA~~dismissed ~~will~~on ~~proceed~~May 15, 2019.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their roles 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 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 forty-three 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 forty-three trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other forty-two 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. On October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

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 fifty 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 one of the fifty trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other forty-nine 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 February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. 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 thirty-seven 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. On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. That appeal has been fully briefed. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. That appeal is being briefed. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. Discovery is ongoing.

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.

~~Beginning~~In onDecember ~~June 18,~~ 2014, aPhoenix ~~group~~Light ofSF ~~institutional investors~~Limited ~~filed~~and ~~civil~~certain related ~~complaints~~entities inand the ~~Supreme~~National ~~Court~~Credit ofUnion ~~the~~Administration ~~State of New York,~~(“NCUA”) ~~New~~filed ~~York~~complaints ~~County,~~in ~~and later~~ the ~~U.S.~~United States District Court for the Southern District of of New York, against Wells Fargo Bank, ~~N.A.,~~alleging (“claims against Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for ~~certain~~a number of residential mortgage -backed securities ~~(“RMBS”)~~ trusts. ~~The~~ Complaints ~~complaints~~raising ~~against~~similar ~~Wells~~allegations ~~Fargo~~have ~~Bank~~been ~~alleged~~filed by ~~that~~Commerzbank AG in the ~~trustee~~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, as trustee, caused losses to investors, and ~~asserted~~plaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among ~~other~~ other things, the trustee'’s alleged failure to: ~~(i)~~ notify and enforce ~~repurchase~~ repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of ~~representations~~ 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~~previously ansettled ~~agreement,~~two inclass ~~which~~action itlawsuits ~~denied~~with ~~any wrongdoing, to~~similar ~~resolve~~allegations ~~such~~that ~~claims~~were onfiled ain ~~classwide~~November ~~basis~~2014 ~~for~~and ~~the~~December ~~271~~2016 ~~RMBS~~by ~~trusts at~~institutional ~~issue. On~~investors ~~May~~in ~~6, 2019,~~ the ~~court~~Southern ~~entered~~District anof ~~order~~New ~~approving~~York ~~the settlement~~and ~~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~~, ~~settlement agreement~~respectively. In addition ~~to the foregoing cases~~, inPark ~~August~~Royal ~~2014 and~~I ~~August~~LLC ~~2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”)~~ and ~~Natixis~~Park ~~Real Estate~~Royal ~~Holdings,~~II LLC ~~(“Natixis”)~~ have filed ~~a total of seven third-party~~ complaints ~~against~~ ~~Wells Fargo Bank~~ in New York state court. Inalleging 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~~N.A., ~~primary~~as ~~servicer or securities administrator~~trustee, failed to ~~notify~~take ~~Nomura~~appropriate ~~and~~actions ~~Natixis~~upon learning of ~~their~~ ~~own~~defective ~~breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and~~mortgage ~~failed~~loan ~~to adhere to accepted servicing practices~~documentation. In ~~Natixis~~March ~~additionally~~2021, alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches. With respect to each of the ~~foregoing~~Company ~~litigations,~~entered ~~Wells~~into ~~Fargo~~an ~~Bank believes~~agreement ~~plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends~~ to ~~contest~~resolve the ~~claims vigorously,~~case ~~but~~filed ~~there~~by ~~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~~NCUA.

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 Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches.

With respect to each of 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 related RMBS trusts.

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

The information regarding this Item has been previously provided in a prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on June 5, 2012 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5).

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

The reports on assessments of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance with respect to the mortgage loans are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit O to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached as Exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

(1) Not applicable

(2) Not applicable

(3) See below

4 Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated by reference herein).

10.1 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated by reference herein)

10.2 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Jefferies LoanCore LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.4 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated by reference herein)

10.3 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. (filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated by reference herein)

10.4 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Archetype Mortgage Funding I LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated by reference herein)

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

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

33.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer

33.2 CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

33.3 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

33.4 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator

33.5 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian

33.6 Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor

33.7 CoreLogic ~~Commercial Real Estate Services~~Solutions, ~~Inc.~~LLC, as Servicing Function Participant

33.8 ~~National~~Computershare ~~Tax~~Trust ~~Search~~Company, ~~LLC,~~National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021

33.9 Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian on and after November 1, 2021

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

34.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer

34.2 CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

34.3 Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

34.4 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator

34.5 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian

34.6 Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor

34.7 CoreLogic ~~Commercial Real Estate Services~~Solutions, ~~Inc.~~LLC, as Servicing Function Participant

34.8 ~~National~~Computershare ~~Tax~~Trust ~~Search~~Company, ~~LLC,~~National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021

34.9 Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Custodian on and after November 1, 2021

35 Servicer compliance statements.

35.1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer

35.2 CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

35.3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator

35.4 Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021

(b) The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above.

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.

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
(Depositor)

/s/ Leah Nivison

Leah Nivison, Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Date: March 1210, ~~2021~~2022

Filing Compare · GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7