**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: 333-191331-04**

**Central Index Key Number of the issuing entity:0001607865**

**GS Mortgage Securities Trust2014-GC22**

**(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: 0001541001**

**Citigroup Global Markets RealtyCorp.**

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

** **

**Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001558761**

**Cantor Commercial Real EstateLending, L.P.**

**(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)**

** **

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

**the issuing entity)** | **38-3932228**

**38-3932229**

**38-3932238**

**(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 “largeaccelerated 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 if asmaller reporting company)                          Smaller reportingcompany                    o

                                                                                                                                                       Emerging growthcompany                    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 shellcompany (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  o Yes ⌧ 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**

The Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan, whichconstituted approximately 10.4% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as ofits cut-off date, is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loancombination that includes the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan and one other *paripassu* loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. This loancombination, including the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan, is being serviced andadministered pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which isincorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

The Exhibit Index describesexhibits provided by certain parties (in their capacities indicated on theExhibit Index) with respect to the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, which constitutedapproximately 11.4% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-offdate.  The Maine Mall Mortgage Loan is an asset of the issuing entity andis part of a loan combination that includes the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan andone other *pari passu* loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity.The other *pari passu* portion of the loan combination was securitized inthe Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2014-GC21 transaction, Commission FileNumber 333-189017-04 (the “CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction”). This loancombination, including the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, is being serviced andadministered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT2014-GC21 Transaction, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 tothis Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The master servicer of a poolingand servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement also functions as theprimary servicer of the related mortgage loans serviced and administeredpursuant to such agreement unless a separate primary servicer is identified herein. If this report does not identify a separate primary servicer, the servicercompliance statement provided by the master servicer under any such agreementalso encompasses its responsibilities as primary servicer of the relatedmortgage loan or mortgage loans.

Deutsche Bank Trust CompanyAmericas acts as trustee of  the mortgage loans serviced under the Poolingand Servicing Agreement.  Pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,the trustee 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 compliance withapplicable 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.

U.S. Bank National Associationacts as trustee of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan.  Pursuant to the poolingand servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction, the trustee isrequired to provide an assessment of compliance with applicable servicingcriteria 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 Maine Mall Mortgage Loan havedelivered one or more assessments of compliance with respect to Item1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.

This Annual Report on Form 10-Kincludes assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria andaccountants’ attestation reports from CoreLogic Solutions, LLC.  Thisentity was engaged by the master servicer under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement and the primary servicer of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan to remit taxpayments received from the escrow accounts of borrowers to local taxingauthorities, to report tax amounts due, to verify tax parcel information, andto verify non-escrow tax payments. These servicing functions are includedwithin the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(4)(xi) and1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB.  Therefore, under the principles-baseddefinition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looksto the functions that an entity performs, this vendor is a “servicer” for thepurposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.  *See* Compliance andDisclosure 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)).

Theassessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’attestation report and servicer compliance statement of the certificateadministrator of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan is omitted from this AnnualReport on Form 10-K as the certificate administrator pursuant to the relatedpooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement does notperform any activities that address servicing criteria with respect to theissuing entity and because it is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB.

**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.**

The Maine Mall Mortgage Loan(Control Number 1 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrantrelating to the issuing entity filed on June 24, 2014 pursuant to Rule424(b)(5)) constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB as disclosed in the prospectus supplement. Inaccordance with Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the most recent unaudited netoperating income of the significant obligor was $15,572,138.00 for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2021.

The Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan(Control Number 2 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrantrelating to the issuing entity filed on June 24, 2014 pursuant to Rule424(b)(5)) constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB as disclosed in the prospectus supplement. Inaccordance with Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the most recent unaudited netoperating income of the significant obligor was $7,544,384.80 for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2021.

**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, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as CertificateAdministrator and Custodian, U.S. Bank National Association, as CertificateAdministrator, Trustee, and Custodian, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asTrustee, and CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer.

 

In December 2014, Phoenix LightSF Limited and certain related entities and the National Credit UnionAdministration (NCUA) filed complaints in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claimsagainst Wells Fargo Bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of residentialmortgage-backed securities trusts. Complaints raising similar allegations havebeen filed by Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKBInternational and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state court. In eachcase, the plaintiffs 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. Wells FargoBank previously settled two class action lawsuits with similar allegations thatwere filed in November 2014 and December 2016 by institutional investors in theSouthern District of New York and New York state court, respectively. Inaddition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed complaints in NewYork state court alleging Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, failed to takeappropriate actions upon learning of defective mortgage loan documentation. InMarch 2021, the Company entered into an agreement to resolve the case filed bythe 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 theunderlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for allegedbreaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residentialmortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions,Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primaryservicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixis oftheir own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, andfailed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally allegesthat Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. Wells FargoBank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Nomura and Natixis failed toprovide Wells Fargo Bank notice of their representation and warranty breaches.

 

With respect to each of the foregoing litigations, WellsFargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contestthe claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of thelitigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank orthe related RMBS trusts.

 

U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and other largefinancial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee or successortrustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS")trusts.  The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groupsagainst U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused lossesto investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loansellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBStrusts.  Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon thetrustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loansellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notifysecurityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches ofservicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightenedstandard of care following alleged events of default.  

 

U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it hasperformed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actionswere not the cause of losses to investors, that it has meritorious defenses,and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claimsvigorously.  However, U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of anyof the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trusteeor the RMBS trusts.  

 

On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent fifteenDelaware statutory trusts (the “DSTs”) that issued securities backed by studentloans (the “Student Loans”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chanceryagainst U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) in its capacities asindenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other institutionsin their respective transaction capacities, with respect to the DSTs and theStudent Loans.  This lawsuit is captioned *The National CollegiateStudent Loan Master Trust I, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al.*,C.A. No. 2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.) (the “NCMSLT Action”).  The complaint,as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged that the DSTs have been harmed as a resultof purported misconduct or omissions by the defendants concerningadministration of the trusts and special servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have madeassertions against U.S. Bank concerning special servicing that appear to bebased on certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT Action.

 

U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of theoperative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery CourtRules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case whileother prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans arelitigated.  On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should bestayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases.  OnJanuary 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrialpurposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the DelawareCourt of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans, which remains pending. 

 

U.S. Bank denies liability in the NCMSLT Action and believesit has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer ingood faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of theagreements governing the DSTs and that it has meritorious defenses.  Ithas contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claimsvigorously.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) andDeutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued byinvestors in civil litigation concerning their role 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 43 of the trusts at issue.  On September 27, 2017,plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant inaddition to DBNTC.  DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts atissue.  DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the U.S. TrustIndenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciaryduty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of New York’s Streit Act; andbreach of the covenant of good faith.  However, in the third amendedcomplaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, thecourt dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligenceclaims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, andcertain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs onlyinclude these claims to preserve any rights on appeal.  Plaintiffs allegedamages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.”  On November 13, 2017, DBNTCand DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint.  On December 7,2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment.  Also onDecember 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG (see description ofCommerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  OnOctober 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summaryjudgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing.  On February 8, 2022, the courtissued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion forsummary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summaryjudgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.  Asa result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed withprejudice.

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 50 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 1 of the 50 trusts at issue.  DBNTC serves as trustee for theother 49 trusts at issue.  Commerzbank’s second amended complaint bringsclaims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty;negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of goodfaith.  However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledgesthat, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s TIAclaims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well asits Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, andCommerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank tosuffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but the complaint does notinclude a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On January 29, 2018,DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint.  OnDecember 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Lightplaintiffs, 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’smotion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summaryjudgment.  As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims andtheories were dismissed with prejudice.  Discovery is ongoing.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidationand IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as aninvestor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court ofthe State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees ofthe trusts.  On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claimsfor breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoidconflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA,violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the UniformCommercial Code.  IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for overU.S. $268 million in damages.  On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA,together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a jointmotion to dismiss.  On January 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017, IKB voluntarilydismissed 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 todismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’sclaims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of theUniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breachof contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA.  Thecourt 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.

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 the SDNYCourt’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020.  Oral argument on the appealoccurred 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, et al., 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 14 counts pled in the Original Complaint.Of those 14, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abettingbreach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2018,the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matterjurisdiction.   On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed asubstantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital InvestmentsLLC, et al., Index No. 653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”).  Thegravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filed inthe United State District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Intotal there are 16 counts pled in the New Complaint. Of those 16 counts, 5claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciaryduty, conversion and unjust enrichment, 1 count seeks a declaratory judgementthat the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contracts in question and 1count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to recognize the plaintiffas the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, theplaintiff dismissed with prejudice the declaratory judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons was not served on the defendants untilJuly 13, 2018 and July 16, 2018.  The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminaryinjunction was denied by the court on July 31, 2018.  On August 3, 2018,the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint inits entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court entered an order grantingdefendants’ motion almost in its entirety, dismissing 11 of the 16 counts andpartially dismissing 2 additional counts.  Of the remaining counts, 2 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 on September26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM attempting toaddress deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissed by the August,20, 2019 order.  CWCI and CWCAM filed its Motion to Dismiss the amendedcomplaint on October 28, 2019.  The court heard argument on the Motion toDismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and on October 23, 2020, thecourt granted the motion dismissing the amended claims.  On November 30,2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd filed a notice of appeal relating to the October23, 2020 dismissal order.  On April 27, 2021, the First Departmentaffirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAM that were part of the August20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal of two counts for breach of theCollateral Management Agreement against CWCI.  CWCI has sought leave tofile an appeal of the decision.  Both requests for leave were denied bythe First Department.  The plaintiff has also sought leave to appeal thedismissal of the claims against CWCAM.  CWCAM believes that it hasperformed its obligations under the related pooling and servicing agreements ingood faith and the remaining allegations in the New Complaint are withoutmerit.  

On January 24, 2016 PSW NYC LLC commenced a complaint (the“PSW Complaint”) with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of NewYork (the “PSW Court”) against Bank of America, N.A. as trustee under thepooling and servicing agreements for Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust2007-C30 and COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, U.S. Bank NationalAssociation as trustee under the pooling and servicing agreements for WachoviaBank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust2007-5 and ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 (collectively, the “PSWTrusts”), PCV-M Holdings LLC and CWCapital Asset Management LLC, individuallyand as special servicer for the PSW Trusts (collectively, the “Defendants”)seeking either (a) damages in an amount to be determined by the PSW Court butalleged by the plaintiffs to be approximately $500,000,000 – such amount beingthe amount PSW NYC LLC alleges would have been recovered on certain mezzanineloans (the “PCVST Mezzanine Loans”) related to the Peter Cooper Village andStuyvesant Town property (the “PCVST Property”) in New York City which PSW NYCLLC sold to an entity related to the Defendants pursuant to a settlementagreement related to certain prior litigation (the “2010 Settlement Agreement”)or (b) the rescission of the 2010 Settlement Agreement which would result in,among other things, the rescission of the sale of the PCVST Mezzanine Loans anda claim for certain proceeds from the sale of the PCVST Property. PSW NYC LLCalleges that the Defendants procured the 2010 Settlement Agreement by fraud andfurther that the terms of the 2010 Settlement Agreement were breached by theDefendants. On February 26, 2016, CWCAM

on behalf of itself and the otherDefendants filed a motion to dismiss the PSW Complaint (the “CWCAM Motion toDismiss”). On April 11, 2016, PSW NYC LLC opposed the CWCAM Motion to Dismissand cross-moved for a partial summary judgment on liability regardingallegations of breach of the 2010 Settlement Agreement (the “PSWCross-Motion”). On May 5, 2016, the Defendants subsequently filed its reply andopposition to the PSW Cross-Motion. On August 23, 2016, oral arguments wereprovided to the PSW Court regarding the PSW Complaint, the CWCAM Motion toDismiss and the PSW Cross-Motion and the PSW Court took such arguments underadvisement. On October 31, 2016, the PSW Court issued an order granting theCWCAM Motion to Dismiss, denying the PSW Cross-Motion and dismissing the PSWComplaint with prejudice. Subsequently, PSW NYC LLC filed a notice of appealrelating to such order. On February 21, 2017, PSW NYC LLC filed its appeal andsupporting brief arguing that the PSW Court erred by finding no breach of theassignment agreement and no fraudulent inducement. Oral argument was heard onMay 4, 2017 at which point the court took the arguments under advisement. OnMay 25, 2017, the New York 1st Department appellate court affirmedthe dismissal of all PSW claims and denied a request for leave to appeal to theNew York Court of Appeals on September 12, 2017.  

On March 31, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding II LTD. (“RAIT PreferredFunding”) commenced a complaint (“RAIT Complaint”) with the SupremeCourt of the State of New York, County of New York (the “RAIT Court”),claiming it owns $18,500,000 of a mortgage loan secured by the development ofthe 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 the BNote 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 has commenced.  CWCAM filed a Motion forSummary Judgement on March 18, 2019.   This matter was settled andthe case dismissed on May 15, 2019.  

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

The information regarding this Item has been previously providedin a prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entityfiled on June 24, 2014 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 4.1to this 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).

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 Maine Mall Mortgage Loan, whichis being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicingagreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction, are attached hereto under Item15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit O to the pooling andservicing agreement for the CGCMT 2014-GC21 Transaction incorporated byreference as Exhibit 4.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chartidentifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the CGCMT2014-GC21 Transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria setforth 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

4.1          Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1,2014, by and among GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital AssetManagement LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as OperatingAdvisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administratorand Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 tothe registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 24, 2014 underCommission File No. 333-191331-04 and incorporated by reference herein).

4.2          Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2014,by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, andU.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee (filedas Exhibit 4.3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 24,2014 under Commission File No. 333-191331-04 and incorporated by referenceherein).

10.1         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1,2014, 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 June 24, 2014 under Commission File No. 333-191331-04 and incorporatedby reference herein)

10.2         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1,2014, 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 June 24, 2014 under Commission File No. 333-191331-04 andincorporated by reference herein)

10.3         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1,2014, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Cantor Commercial RealEstate Lending, L.P. (filed as Exhibit 10.4 to the registrant’s Current Reporton Form 8-K filed on June 24, 2014 under Commission File No. 333-191331-04 andincorporated by reference herein)

10.4         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 1,2014, between GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II and Starwood MortgageFunding I LLC (filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form8-K filed on June 24, 2014 under Commission File No. 333-191331-04 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 Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See ExplanatoryNotes.)

33.4        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator

33.5        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian

33.6        Pentalpha Surveillance 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 andafter November 1, 2021

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

33.10      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.1)

33.11      CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicerof the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.2)

33.12      Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee of the Selig PortfolioMortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

33.13      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.5)

33.14      Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor ofthe Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.6)

33.15      CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.7)

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

33.17      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.1)

33.18      LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer of theMaine Mall Mortgage Loan

33.19      U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee andCustodian of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan

33.20      Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan

33.21      CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 33.7)

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 Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (Omitted. See ExplanatoryNotes.)

34.4        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCertificate Administrator

34.5        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian

34.6        Pentalpha Surveillance 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

34.10      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.1)

34.11      CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicerof the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.2)

34.12      Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee of the Selig PortfolioMortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

34.13      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, asCustodian of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.5)

34.14      Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor ofthe Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.6)

34.15      CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.7)

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

34.17      Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.1)

34.18      LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer of theMaine Mall Mortgage Loan

34.19      U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee andCustodian of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan

34.20      Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as OperatingAdvisor of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan

34.21      CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 34.7)

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, asCertificate Administrator

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

35.5        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.1)

35.6        CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicerof the Selig Portfolio Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.7        Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer of the Maine Mall Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.1)

35.8        LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer of the MaineMall Mortgage Loan

(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 22, 2022