**UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 10-K**

(Mark One)

**x****  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021or**

**o**** ****TRANSITIONREPORT 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 Trust2012-GCJ7**

**(exact name of the issuing entity as specified in itscharter)**

** **

**Central Index Key Number of the depositor: 0001004158**

**GS Mortgage Securities CorporationII**

**(exact name of the depositor as specified in itscharter)**

** **

**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 RealtyCorp.**

**(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 asArchetype 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 principalexecutive 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 theAct:  None.

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required tofile reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  o Yes ⌧No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filedall reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter periodthat the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has beensubject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  ⌧ Yes oNo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submittedelectronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every InteractiveData File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 ofRegulation 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 postsuch files).

Not applicable.

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filerspursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’sknowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated byreference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form10-K.   

Not applicable.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a largeaccelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smallerreporting 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 acceleratedfiler        o                                                                                                       Acceleratedfiler                                     o

Non-acceleratedfiler          ⌧  (Do not check ifa smaller reporting company)                          Smaller reporting company                    o

                                                                                                                                                       Emerging growth company                    o

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if theregistrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complyingwith any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant toSection 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed areport on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectivenessof its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of theSarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firmthat 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).  oYes ⌧ No

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

Not applicable.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed alldocuments and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securitiesunder a plan confirmed by a court.  oYes oNo

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE**

** **

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

Not applicable.

 

** **

**EXPLANATORY NOTES**

Deutsche Bank National TrustCompany acts as trustee of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling andServicing Agreement.  Pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, thetrustee is required to provide an assessment of compliance with applicableservicing criteria solely with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB(regarding advances of funds or guarantees regarding collections, cash flows ordistributions, and any interest or other fees charged for such advances, aremade, reviewed and approved as specified in the transaction agreements). However, during the reporting period, the trustee did not perform any servicingfunction with respect to the servicing criteria specified in Item1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.  The master servicer or the specialservicer, to the extent required, performed the servicing function identifiedwith respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, and each such partyincluded Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB in the assessment of compliancewith applicable servicing criteria and accountant’s attestation report for thesubject transaction.  As a result, this Annual Report on Form 10-K doesnot include an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria ofthe trustee.  One or more other servicers of the mortgage loans servicedunder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement have delivered one or moreassessments of compliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of RegulationAB.

This Annual Report on Form 10-Kincludes assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria andaccountants’ attestation reports from CoreLogic Solutions, LLC.  This entitywas engaged by the master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement toremit tax payments received from the escrow accounts of borrowers to localtaxing authorities, to report tax amounts due, to verify tax parcelinformation, and to verify non-escrow tax payments.  These servicingfunctions are included within the servicing criteria set forth in Items1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB.  Therefore, under theprinciples-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) ofRegulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, this vendoris a “servicer” for the purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.  SeeCompliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

This Annual Report on Form 10-Kincludes an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria,accountants’ attestation report and servicer compliance statement fromComputershare Trust Company, National Association (“CTCNA”).  CTCNAwas engaged by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (“Wells Fargo”),in its capacity as certificate administrator and custodian, to perform certainspecified servicing functions identified in the assessment of compliance withapplicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports.  WellsFargo engaged CTCNA in connection with the sale of Wells Fargo’s corporatetrust services business to CTCNA and its affiliates.  Further, under theprinciples-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) ofRegulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, this partyis a “servicer” for the purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.  SeeCompliance 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**

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

Omitted.

**Item 6.  Selected Financial Data.**

Omitted.

**Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis ofFinancial Condition and Results of Operations.**

Omitted.

**Item 7A.  Quantitative and Qualitative DisclosuresAbout Market Risk.**

Omitted.

**Item 8.  Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.**

Omitted.

**Item 9.  Changes in and Disagreements WithAccountants 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 CorporateGovernance.**

Omitted.

**Item 11.  Executive Compensation.**

Omitted.

**Item 12.  Security Ownership of Certain BeneficialOwners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.**

Omitted.

**Item 13.  Certain Relationships and RelatedTransactions, and Director Independence.**

Omitted.

**Item 14.  Principal Accounting Fees and Services.**

Omitted.

**ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB**

**Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant ObligorFinancial Information.**

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

 

**Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant EnhancementProvider Financial Information.**

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

**Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain DerivativesInstruments (Financial Information).**

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides anyderivative instruments or other support for the certificates within thistransaction as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

**Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.**

The registrant knows of no material pending legal proceedinginvolving the trust or any party related to the trust, other than routinelitigation incidental to the duties of those respective parties, and thefollowing, with respect to CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer,Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Custodian.

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

On December 17, 2015, U.S. Bank National Association, thetrustee under five pooling and servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia BankCommercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, (ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2,(iii) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, (iv) ML-CFC CommercialMortgage Trust 2007-5 and (v) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 commenceda proceeding with the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County,Minnesota (the “State Court”) for a declaratory judgment as to theproper allocation of certain proceeds (“Disputed Proceeds”) received byCWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and StuyvesantTown property in New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property.  The petition requeststhe State Court to instruct the trustee, the trust beneficiaries, and any otherinterested parties as to the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, thatconstitute penalty interest and/or the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any,that constitute gain-on-sale proceeds, with respect to each trust.  OnFebruary 24, 2016, CWCAM made a limited appearance with the State Court to filea motion to dismiss this proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction, mootness,standing and forum non conveniens.  On July 19, 2016, the State Courtdenied CWCAM’s motion to dismiss.  On July 22, 2016, the action wasremoved to federal court in Minnesota (“Federal Court”).  OnOctober 21, 2016, the Federal Court held a hearing on the motion to transferthe action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork (“SDNY Court”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion tohear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss.  OnMarch 14, 2017, the Federal Court reserved the determination on the motion tohear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, denied themotion to remand the matter to state court and granted the motion to transferthe proceeding to the SDNY Court.  Cross motions for judgment on thepleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to decide the case based onthe pleadings and the SDNY Court ordered discovery.  All fact discoverywas completed in December, 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15,2019.  The parties submitted cross motions for summary judgment, and onMarch 19, 2020, the SDNY Court entered an opinion andorder in which it granted summary judgment in CWCAM’s favor and held that CWCAMwas entitled to the entire amount of penalty interest and that CWCAM’sdetermination of Yield Maintenance was correct.  In the 127-page opinion,the SDNY Court found for CWCAM on every issue presented by the trustee’spetition, namely, that the funds in dispute constitute penalty interest andyield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the amount of penaltyinterest and yield maintenance was correctly calculated.  An appeal of theSDNY Court’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020.  Oral argument on theappeal occurred on June 21, 2021. The parties await the decision of the appealscourt.  

On December 1, 2017, a complaint against CWCAM and others wasfiled in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkstyled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, No.17-cv-9463 (the “Original Complaint”).  The gravamen of theOriginal Complaint alleged breaches of a contract and fiduciary duties byCWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in its capacity as collateralmanager for the collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapitalCobalt Vr Ltd. In total, there are fourteen counts pled in the OriginalComplaint.  Of those fourteen, five claims were asserted against CWCAM foraiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.  On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd.filed a substantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapitalInvestments LLC, Index No. 653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”). The gravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filedin the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York. In total, there are sixteen counts pled in the New Complaint.  Of thosesixteen counts, five claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abettingbreach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, one count seeks adeclaratory judgment that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contractsin question and one count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants torecognize the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice thedeclaratory judgment and injunction counts.  The New Complaint and relatedsummons were not served on the defendants until July 13, 2018 and July 16,2018.  The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied bythe court on July 31, 2018.  On August 3, 2018, the defendants, includingCWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint in its entirety.  OnAugust 20, 2019, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion almostin its entirety, dismissing eleven of the sixteen counts and partiallydismissing two additional counts.  Of the remaining counts, two areasserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty andunjust enrichment.  On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. fileda notice of appeal relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and onSeptember 26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAMattempting to address deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissedby the August 20, 2019 order.  CWCI and CWCAM filed their Motion toDismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2019.  The court heardargument on the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 andon October 23, 2020, the court granted the motion dismissing the amendedclaims.  On November 30, 2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice ofappeal relating to the October 23, 2020 dismissal order.  On April 27,2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAMthat were part of the August 20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal oftwo counts for breach of the Collateral Management Agreement againstCWCI.  CWCI has sought leave to file an appeal of the decision.  Bothrequests for leave were denied by the First Department.  The plaintiff hasalso sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the claims against CWCAM. CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the related poolingand servicing agreements in good faith and the remaining allegations in the NewComplaint are without merit.  

On January 24, 2016 PSW NYC LLCcommenced a complaint (the “PSW Complaint”) with the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York, County of New York (the “PSW Court”) against Bankof America, N.A. as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreements forWachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30 and COBALT CMBS CommercialTrust 2007-C2, U.S. Bank National Association as trustee under the pooling andservicing agreements for Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31,ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust2007-6 (collectively, the “PSW Trusts”), PCV-M Holdings LLC andCWCapital Asset Management LLC, individually and as special servicer for thePSW Trusts (collectively, the “Defendants”), seeking either (a) damagesin an amount to be determined by the PSW Court but alleged by the plaintiffs tobe approximately $500,000,000, such amount being the amount PSW NYC LLC allegeswould have been recovered on certain mezzanine loans (the “PCVST MezzanineLoans”) related to the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property (the“PCVST Property”) in New York City which PSW NYC LLC sold to an entityrelated to the Defendants pursuant to a settlement agreement related to certainprior litigation (the “2010 Settlement Agreement”) or (b) the rescissionof the 2010 Settlement Agreement which would result in, among other things, therescission of the sale of the PCVST Mezzanine Loans and a claim for certainproceeds from the sale of the PCVST Property.  PSW NYC LLC alleges thatthe Defendants procured the 2010 Settlement Agreement by fraud and further thatthe terms of the 2010 Settlement Agreement were breached by the Defendants. On February 26, 2016, CWCAM on behalf of itself and the other Defendantsfiled a motion to dismiss the PSW Complaint (the “CWCAM Motion to Dismiss”). On April 11, 2016, PSW NYC LLC opposed the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss andcross-moved for a partial summary judgment on liability regarding allegationsof breach of the 2010 Settlement Agreement (the “PSW Cross-Motion”). On May 5, 2016, the Defendants subsequently filed their reply andopposition to the PSW Cross-Motion.  On August 23, 2016, oral argumentswere provided to the PSW Court regarding the PSW Complaint, the CWCAM Motion toDismiss and the PSW Cross-Motion and the PSW Court took such arguments under advisement. On October 31, 2016, the PSW Court issued an order granting the CWCAMMotion to Dismiss, denying the PSW Cross-Motion and dismissing the PSWComplaint with prejudice.  Subsequently, PSW NYC LLC filed a notice ofappeal relating to such order.  On February 21, 2017, PSW NYC LLC filedits appeal and supporting brief arguing that the PSW Court erred by finding nobreach of the assignment agreement and no fraudulent inducement.  Oralargument was heard on May 4, 2017 at which point the court took the argumentsunder advisement.  On May 25, 2017, the New York First Departmentappellate court affirmed the dismissal of all PSW claims and denied a requestfor leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals on September 12,2017.  

On March 31, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding II, Ltd. (“RAITPreferred Funding”) commenced a complaint (“RAIT Complaint”) withthe Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “RAITCourt”), claiming it owns $18,500,000 of a mortgage loan secured by thedevelopment of the One Congress Street Property in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Loan”)and seeking (a) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT Preferred Funding isthe directing lender under a co-lender agreement dated March 28, 2007 and apooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007 (collectively, the “OperativeAgreements”) and was the directing lender at the time of the impropermodification of the Loan, (b) a declaratory judgment stating that RAITPreferred Funding has the right to terminate the special servicer, (c) monetarydamages for the value of the bonds and fees paid to CWCAM as the specialservicer of the Loan and (d) other things.  On May 17, 2016, CWCAM filed amotion to dismiss the RAIT Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) stating thatthe RAIT Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAITComplaint are negated by affidavits and evidentiary materials submitted withthe RAIT Complaint.  On June 14, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding filed aMemorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”)stating that the claims in the RAIT Complaint were properly stated.  OnJune 30, 2016, CWCAM filed a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss and inresponse to the Opposition, stating that each of CWCAM’s arguments is supportedby the express language of the agreements between the parties, the documentaryevidence and New York case law.  On September 30, 2016, RAIT PreferredFunding and CWCAM entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement (the “2016Settlement”), which provides for a stay of the RAIT Preferred Fundinglitigation (the “Litigation Stay”) through August 25, 2017. Pursuant to the terms of the 2016 Settlement, upon satisfaction of a term ofthe 2016 Settlement by August 25, 2017 (or such later date agreed to by theparties), the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation will be dismissed withprejudice.  On May 19, 2017 the Borrower repaid the Loan in accordancewith the terms of the notes and satisfied the condition to dismissal withprejudice.  RAIT has refused to dismiss the case and is claiming that theB Note should be paid in full.  CWCAM believes that it has performed itsobligations under the Operative Agreements in good faith, and that the actionshould be dismissed with prejudice.  On August 29, 2017, the RAIT Courtgranted leave to RAIT Preferred Funding to amend its complaint.  OnSeptember 20, 2017, RAIT Preferred Funding filed an Amended Complaint (the “RAITAmended Complaint”), which omits its original claims, adds Wells Fargo Bankas a defendant, and seeks (a) specific performance requiring repayment of the$18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note or, in the alternative, monetarydamages, including the $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note, in an amountto be determined at trial, (b) monetary damages on any fees paid to CWCAM asspecial servicer or Wells Fargo Bank as master servicer in connection with theborrower’s repayment of the Loan, (c) a declaratory judgment that RAITPreferred Funding is entitled to recover the full $18,500,000 principal amountof the B Note, (d) punitive damages against CWCAM, and (e) other things. On October 11, 2017, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint(“CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint”) stating that the RAITAmended Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAITAmended Complaint are negated by the Operative Agreements and other admissibleevidentiary materials.  On November 13, 2017, Wells Fargo Bank filed amotion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (the “Wells Fargo Motion toDismiss Amended Complaint”) and joined the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss AmendedComplaint.  On January 29, 2018, the court dismissed all claims but forbreach of contract and discovery commenced.  CWCAM filed a Motion forSummary Judgment on March 18, 2019.   This matter was settled and thecase dismissed on May 15, 2019.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) andDeutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued byinvestors in civil litigation concerning their roles as trustees of certainresidential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. 

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including fundsmanaged by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed anaction against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court alleging thatDBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for 544private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations andwarranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches byservicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed the case from NewYork State Supreme Court and refiled two separate cases, one in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock SDNYCase”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County(the “BlackRock California Case”).  Pursuant to a settlement amongthe parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 6, 2018, and theBlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 11, 2019.

On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to acase brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SFLimited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, inwhich the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served astrustee for all forty-three of the trusts at issue.  On September 27,2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as adefendant in addition to DBNTC.  DBTCA serves as trustee for one of theforty-three trusts at issue.  DBNTC serves as trustee for the otherforty-two trusts at issue.  Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint bringsclaims 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 goodfaith.  However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledgethat, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIAAct claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claimsfor breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserveany rights on appeal.  Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millionsof dollars.”  On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to thethird amended complaint.  On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed amotion for summary judgment.  Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs,jointly with Commerzbank AG (see description of Commerzbank case below), fileda motion for partial summary judgment.  On October 27, 2021, DBNTC andDBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’standing.  On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which itgranted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted inpart DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and deniedplaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.  As a result of thatorder, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to acase brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previouslyalleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all fifty of the trusts atissue.  On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaintthat names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC.  DBTCA serves astrustee for one of the fifty trusts at issue.  DBNTC serves as trustee forthe other forty-nine trusts at issue.  Commerzbank’s second amendedcomplaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach offiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of thecovenant of good faith.  However, in the second amended complaint,Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the courtdismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling andservicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach ofthe covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims topreserve any rights on appeal.  The second amended complaint alleges thatDBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollarsin losses,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in asum certain.  On January 29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to thesecond amended complaint.  On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed amotion for summary judgment.  Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank,jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summaryjudgment.  On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which itgranted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and deniedplaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.  As a result of thatorder, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed withprejudice.  Discovery is ongoing.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidationand IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as aninvestor in thirty-seven RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in theSupreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC andDBTCA as trustees of the trusts.  On May 27, 2016, IKB served itscomplaint 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 ofthe Uniform Commercial Code.  IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liablefor over U.S. $268 million in damages.  On October 5, 2016, DBNTC andDBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed ajoint motion to dismiss.  On January 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017, IKBvoluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims as to seven trusts.  OnJanuary 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’smotion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respectto IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims forbreach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss.  IKB’s remainingclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty toavoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed.  OnMay 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New YorkSupreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspectsof the court’s order on the motion to dismiss.  That appeal has been fullybriefed.  On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respectto other aspects of that order.  That appeal is being briefed.  OnJune 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects ofthe 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 thecomplaint.  On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation,voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additionaltrusts.  On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation,voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additionaltrust.  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 inthe foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to performits duties under the related servicing agreement for this transaction.

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited and certainrelated entities and the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”)filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern Districtof New York against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bankin its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backedsecurities trusts.  Complaints raising similar allegations have been filedby Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKB Internationaland IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state court.  In each case, theplaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as trustee, caused losses toinvestors, and plaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among otherthings, the trustee’s alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchaseobligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representationsand warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide byappropriate standards of care following alleged events of default.  WellsFargo Bank previously settled two class action lawsuits with similarallegations that were filed in November 2014 and December 2016 by institutionalinvestors in the Southern District of New York and New York state court,respectively.  In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC havefiled complaints in New York state court alleging Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., astrustee, failed to take appropriate actions upon learning of defective mortgageloan documentation.  In March 2021, the Company entered into an agreementto resolve the case filed by the NCUA.

 

In addition to the foregoingcases, in August 2014 and August 2015 Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”)and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seventhird-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been suedfor alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection withresidential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them.  In thethird-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as masterservicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomuraand Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primaryservicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices.  Natixisadditionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversightduties.  Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomuraand Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representationand warranty breaches.

 

With respect to each of theforegoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs’ claims are withoutmerit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be noassurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of thelitigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the related RMBS trusts.

**Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and CertainRelationships and Related Transactions.**

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

**Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with ApplicableServicing Criteria.**

The reports on assessments of compliance with the servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports on suchassessments of compliance with respect to the mortgage loans are attachedhereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit Oto the Pooling and Servicing Agreement incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4 tothis Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entitiesparticipating in a servicing function for the transaction responsible for eachapplicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

**Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.**

The servicer compliance statements are attached as Exhibitsto 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 ofthis 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, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, aDivision of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, SitusHoldings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee(filed as Exhibit 4 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed onJuly 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 and incorporated byreference herein).

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

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

10.4         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1,2012, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Archetype MortgageFunding I LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form8-K filed on July 23, 2012 under Commission File No. 333-171508-03 andincorporated by reference herein)

 

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

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

33.1        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer

33.2        CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

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

33.4        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator

33.5        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian

33.6        Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor

33.7        CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant

33.8        Computershare Trust Company, National Association,as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator on and afterNovember 1, 2021

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

34           Attestationreports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities.

34.1        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as MasterServicer

34.2        CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

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

34.4        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator

34.5        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian

34.6        Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor

34.7        CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant

34.8        Computershare Trust Company, National Association,as Servicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator on andafter 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 MasterServicer

35.2        CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer

35.3        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator

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

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

(c)           Not Applicable.

 

**SIGNATURES**

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report tobe signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

GS Mortgage Securities CorporationII(Depositor)

/s/ LeahNivison

LeahNivison, Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge ofsecuritization of the depositor)

Date: March 10, 2022