TCR_Public/140316.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

             Sunday, March 16, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 74

                            Headlines

ACAS CLO 2013-2: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
AMERICREDIT 2014-1: S&P Gives Prelim. BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
ARES IIIR/IVR: Moody's Hikes Rating on $31MM Cl. E Notes to Ba3
ARROWPOINT CLO 2014-2: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
BABSON CLO 2007-I: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ba1

BANC OF AMERICA 2007-1: Moody's Lowers Ratings on $36MM RMBS
BEAR STEARNS 2002-TOP8: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class K Certs
BEAR STEARNS 2003-TOP12: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class H Notes
BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class B Notes
BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR15: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 4 Certs

BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO II: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. D Notes to 'Ba2'
BNPP IP 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
CALLIDUS DEBT IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes From 'BB+'
CARLYLE GLOBAL 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on E Notes
CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on G Certs

CIFC FUNDING 2014: Moody's Assigns 'B2' Rating on Class F Notes
CITIGROUP 2005-C3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 2 Cert. Classes
COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE 1999-C2: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on H Certs
CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C4: Moody's Cuts Rating on A-X Certs to Caa3
CREDIT SUISSE 2008-C1: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on Class J Certs

CREST G-STAR 2001-2: Fitch Withdraws 'Dsf' Rating on Class C Notes
COMM 2004-LNB2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on $10.8MM Class G Certs
DENALI CAPITAL: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes to 'Ba2'
DRYDEN 31: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $15MM Jr. Secured Notes
EAST LANE VI: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating to Series 2014-I Notes

EMPORIA PREFERRED II: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'B-'
GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C2: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class K Certs
GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C2: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Cert. Classes
GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C3: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Certificates to 'D'
FIRST UNION 2002-C1: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class J Notes

FREMONT HOME 2006-A: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. 1-A-2 Secs to Caa2
GS MORTGAGE 2006-GG6: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on 2 Note Classes
GUGGENHEIM PRIVATE: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class C Notes
ING IM 2014-1: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $7MM Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 1999-C8: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 2 Note Classes

JP MORGAN 2003-ML1: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class M Notes to 'CCC'
JP MORGAN 2003-PM1: S&P Lowers Rating on Certificates to 'BB-'
JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. A-J Notes to 'Csf'
JP MORGAN 2013-C10: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class F Certs
JP MORGAN 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes

KKR FINANCIAL 2013-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
KODIAK CDO I: S&P Lowers Rating on 5 Note Classes to 'CC'
LB-UBS 2005-C1: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 3 Cert. Classes
LB-UBS 2005-C3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. X-CBM Certs to 'Caa1'
LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2005-1: Moody's Cuts Rating on $131MM of RMBS

LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2006-1: Moody's Cuts Rating on 4-A1 Certs to Caa2
MSIM PECONIC: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class E Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2006-XLF: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on X-1 Certs
NEUBERGER BERMAN XVI: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
NEW RESIDENTIAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on 3 Note Classes

NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2013-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Cl. F Notes
NORTHWOODS CAPITAL: S&P Assigns Prelim BB Rating on Class E Notes
OCP CLO 2014-5: S&P Assigns Preliminary BB Rating on Class D Notes
PACIFICA CDO V: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'BB+'
PALMER SQUARE 2013-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class D Notes

RALI SERIES 2004-QR1: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-2 Debt to Ba2
SALOMON BROTHERS 2000-C2: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on Cl. H Certs
SLM PRIVATE 2005-B: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class C Notes
STRUCTURED ASSET 2004-S2: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Securities
TAXABLE WORLD: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1' Revenue Bond Rating

TERWIN MORTGAGE 2005-3SL: Moody's Hikes M-1 Notes' Rating to Caa1
WACHOVIA BANK 2003-C4: Fitch Hikes Rating on Cl. O Certs to 'BBsf'
WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: Moody's Affirms 'C' Ratings on 4 Notes
WFRBS 2014-C19: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on Cl. X-B Secs.

* Fitch Cuts or Withdraws Distressed Classes in 34 U.S. CMBS Deals
* Moody's Takes Action on $338MM of RMBS by Various Trusts


                             *********

ACAS CLO 2013-2: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on ACAS
CLO 2013-2 Ltd./ACAS CLO 2013-2 LLC's $375.75 million fixed- and
floating-rate notes following the transaction's effective date as
of Jan. 17, 2014.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral, or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

"An effective date rating affirmation reflects our opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
us by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that we assigned on the transaction's closing
date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of certain
information that we used in our analysis and the results of our
review based on the information presented to us," S&P said.

S&P believes the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of its criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P said.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P added.

On an ongoing basis after S&P issues an effective date rating
affirmation, it will periodically review whether, in its view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and take rating actions as it deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

ACAS CLO 2013-2 Ltd./ACAS CLO 2013-2 LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                      (mil. $)
A-1A                       AAA (sf)                      99.00
A-1B                       AAA (sf)                     140.00
A-1C                       AAA (sf)                      10.00
A-2A                       AA (sf)                       43.75
A-2B                       AA (sf)                       10.00
B (deferrable)             A (sf)                        28.00
C (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      20.00
D (deferrable)             BB (sf)                       18.00
E (deferrable)             B (sf)                         7.00


AMERICREDIT 2014-1: S&P Gives Prelim. BB+ Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-1's $750
million automobile receivables-backed notes series 2014-1.

The note issuance is an asset-backed securities transaction backed
by subprime auto loan receivables.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 10,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The availability of approximately 42.5%, 37.4%, 30.6%,
      23.0%, and 18.9% credit support for the class A-1, A-2, and
      A-3 (collectively, the class A notes), B, C, D, and E notes,
      respectively (based on stressed cash flow scenarios,
      including excess spread), which provide coverage of more
      than 3.50x, 3.25x, 2.55x, 1.93x, and 1.58x S&P's 10.75%-
      11.25% expected cumulative net loss range for the class A,
      B, C, D, and E notes, respectively.  These credit support
      levels are commensurate with the assigned preliminary 'A-1+
      (sf)' and 'AAA (sf)', 'AA+ (sf)', 'A+ (sf)', 'BBB+ (sf)',
      and 'BB+ (sf)' ratings on the class A, B, C, D, and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate, or 'BBB', stress
      scenario, its ratings on the notes would not decline by more
      than one rating category from its preliminary ratings (all
      else being equal) over a 12-month period.  S&P's ratings
      stability criteria describe the outer bound of credit
      deterioration within one year as one rating category in the
      case of 'AAA' and 'AA' rated securities and two rating
      categories in the case of 'A', 'BBB', and 'BB' rated
      securities.

   -- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination,
      overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.

   -- The timely interest and ultimate principal payments made
      under the stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which are
      consistent with the assigned preliminary ratings.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the securitized pool of
      subprime auto loans.

   -- General Motors Financial Co. Inc.'s (GM Financial, formerly
      known as AmeriCredit Corp.; BB/Positive/--) extensive
      securitization performance history since 1994. On Sept. 6,
      2013, Standard & Poor's affirmed its long-term counterparty
      credit rating on GM Financial at 'BB' and revised the
      outlook to positive from stable.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-1

Class         Rating      Type           Interest       Amount
                                         rate(i)      (mil. $)
A-1       A-1+ (sf)       Senior         Fixed           97.00
A-2       AAA (sf)        Senior         Fixed          233.70
A-3       AAA (sf)        Senior         Fixed          202.02
B         AA+ (sf)        Subordinate    Fixed           57.39
C         A+ (sf)         Subordinate    Fixed           71.24
D         BBB+ (sf)       Subordinate    Fixed           70.05
E(ii)     BB+ (sf)        Subordinate    Fixed           18.60

  (i) The tranches' coupons will be determined on the pricing
      date.

(ii) Class E will be privately placed or retained and is not
      included in the public offering amount.


ARES IIIR/IVR: Moody's Hikes Rating on $31MM Cl. E Notes to Ba3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Ares IIIR/IVR CLO Ltd. :

$42,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes, Upgraded
to Aa1 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$42,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

$35,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes,
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$50,000,000 Class A-1 Variable Funding Floating Rate Notes
(current outstanding balance of $48,949,093), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$446,300,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
(current outstanding balance of $436,919,609), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$31,500,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes,
Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on August 8, 2011 Upgraded to Ba3
(sf)

Ares IIIR/IVR CLO Ltd., issued in March 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period will end in
April 2014.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
April 2014. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive
buffer relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular,
Moody's assumed that the deal will benefit from a lower weighted
average rating factor of 2605 compared to the covenant level of
2915. Moody's also modeled a higher weighted average recovery rate
than in its last rating review because the manager has been
increasing the deal's exposure to first-lien, senior secured loan
collateral.

The rating actions on the notes also reflect corrections to
Moody's modeling of the overcollateralization (OC) tests, the
coupons on the notes and the payment of deferred interest on the
notes using principal proceeds. Due to input errors in previous
rating actions, Moody's did not include recoveries from current
defaults in its modeling of the OC tests and did not correctly
model the coupons on the notes or the payment of deferred interest
on the notes using principal proceeds. These errors have now been
corrected, and the rating actions reflect these changes.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will commence and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

6) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after the end
of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager has the
ability to erode some of the collateral quality metrics to the
covenant levels. Such reinvestment could affect the transaction
either positively or negatively. In particular, Moody's tested for
a possible extension of the actual weighted average life in its
analysis given that the post-reinvestment period reinvesting
criteria has loose restrictions on the weighted average life of
the portfolio.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2084)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +3

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3126)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: -2

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Class E: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $664.8 million, defaulted
par of $1.4 million, a weighted average default probability of
18.31% (implying a WARF of 2605), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.34%, a diversity score of 57 and a weighted
average spread of 3.03%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


ARROWPOINT CLO 2014-2: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to
Arrowpoint CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Arrowpoint CLO 2014-2 Corp.'s $414.50
million floating- and fixed-rate notes.  Since S&P assigned its
preliminary ratings, the issuer added the class A-1F notes to this
transaction in the amount of $25 million with a fixed interest
rate.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation backed by a
revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly syndicated senior
secured loans.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the rated notes through
      the subordination of cash flows that are payable to the
      subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (excluding excess spread) and cash-flow structure, which can
      withstand the default rate projected by Standard & Poor's
      CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's using
      the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on rated notes, which S&P assessed using
      its cash flow analysis and assumptions commensurate with the
      assigned ratings under various interest-rate scenarios,
      including LIBOR ranging from 0.2419%-12.7531%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Arrowpoint CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Arrowpoint CLO 2014-2 Corp.

Class                   Rating          Amount (mil. $)
A-1L                    AAA (sf)                 250.00
A-1F                    AAA (sf)                  25.00
B                       AA (sf)                   54.00
C (deferrable)          A (sf)                    33.00
D (deferrable)          BBB (sf)                  24.00
E (deferrable)          BB- (sf)                  21.00
F (deferrable)          B (sf)                     7.50
Subordinated notes      NR                        45.75

NR-Not rated.


BABSON CLO 2007-I: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Note Classes to Ba1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Babson CLO Ltd. 2007-I:

$55,000,000 Class A-2b Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded to
Aa1 (sf)

$42,500,000 Class A-3 Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021,
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded to
Aa2 (sf)

$36,500,000 Class B-1 Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes
Due 2021, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on August 19, 2011
Upgraded to A3 (sf)

$6,000,000 Class B-2 Deferrable Mezzanine Fixed Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on August 19, 2011
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf)

$21,000,000 Class D-1 Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes
Due 2021, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on August 19, 2011
Upgraded to Ba2 (sf)

$4,000,000 Class D-2 Deferrable Mezzanine Fixed Rate Notes Due
2021, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf)

$10,000,000 Class Q Combination Notes Due 2021 (current
outstanding rated balance of $6,221,785), Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);
previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$298,000,000 Class A-1 Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
(current outstanding balance of $282,091,913), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 19, 2011 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$220,000,000 Class A-2a Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2021
(current outstanding balance of $205,319,718), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on March 23, 2007 Assigned Aaa (sf)

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions reflect the benefit of the short period of
time remaining before the end of the deal's reinvestment period in
April 2014. In light of the reinvestment restrictions during the
amortization period, and therefore the limited ability of the
manager to effect significant changes to the current collateral
pool, Moody's analyzed the deal assuming a higher likelihood that
the collateral pool characteristics will maintain a positive
buffer relative to certain covenant requirements. In particular,
Moody's assumed that the deal will benefit from lower WARF and
higher WAS compared to the covenant levels. Moody's modeled a WARF
of 2473 and WAS of 2.94% compared to the covenant levels of 2824
and 2.70%, respectively. Furthermore, the transaction's OC ratios
have been stable since February 2013.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will commence and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (1978)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2a: 0

Class A-2b: 0

Class A-3: 0

Class B-1: +3

Class B-2: +3

Class C: +3

Class D-1: +1

Class D-2: +2

Class Q: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2968)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2a: 0

Class A-2b: 0

Class A-3: -2

Class B-1: -2

Class B-2: -2

Class C: -2

Class D-1: -1

Class D-2: -1

Class Q: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $730.4 million, defaulted
par of $8.25 million, a weighted average default probability of
16.89% (implying a WARF of 2473), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.34%, a diversity score of 71 and a weighted
average spread of 2.94%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


BANC OF AMERICA 2007-1: Moody's Lowers Ratings on $36MM RMBS
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of 11
tranches backed by Prime Jumbo RMBS loans, issued by Banc of
America Mortgage 2007-1 Trust.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Banc of America Mortgage 2007-1 Trust

Cl. 1-A-9, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A-18, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 1-A-20, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 1-A-32, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Cl. 1-IO, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-16, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-17, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-19, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-20, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-21, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 2-A-23, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 30, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The rating actions for Exchangeable Classes 1-A-32, 2-
A-16, and 2-A-20 also reflect corrections to the calculations used
by Moody's in rating these tranches. In prior rating actions,
errors were made in the calculations based on each tranche's
exchangeable combination. The errors have now been corrected, and
the rating actions reflect these changes.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


BEAR STEARNS 2002-TOP8: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class K Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded seven and affirmed five classes of Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust (BSCMST 2002-Top8)
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2002-Top8.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades reflect the increase in credit enhancement of the
Fitch rated classes due to payoff of loans coupled with better
than expected resolutions to specially serviced and maturing
loans.  Overall expected losses for the pool based on original
pool balance have decreased from Fitch's prior rating action.
Fitch modeled losses of 14.8% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 2.2%, including $3.8
million (0.5% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated five loans (28.2%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes three specially serviced assets (18.5%).

As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 88.1% to $99.9 million from
$842.2 million at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, two loans
(50.5% of the pool) are defeased.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a 205,000 square
foot (sf) single-tenant retail asset (7.2% of the pool) located in
Sacramento, CA.  The tenant vacated the property in October 2013
subsequent to the trust foreclosing upon the property in June
2012.  The city has filed an eminent domain lawsuit with the
intention of acquiring the asset for the development of a new
sports arena in downtown Sacramento.  The servicer has filed a
response in opposition to the motion for possession in addition to
a motion to transfer the venue, with hearings scheduled in March
2014.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a 139,971 sf
office property (7.3%) located in Charlotte, NC.  The property has
suffered occupancy issues due to soft market conditions coupled
with the largest tenant downsizing by 27% of the NRA in early
2012.  As of September 2013, occupancy for the property was 52%
with DSCR of 0.57x.  According to REIS' January 2014 report, the
Park Road submarket of Charlotte reported a vacancy of 28% with
average asking rents of $18.87 psf.  The subject property
underperforms the market with respect to occupancy and has average
in-place rents of $15.78 psf.  Fitch accounted for lease rollover
exposure in 2014, which is approximately 7% of the NRA, and
anticipates a protracted leasing period prior to stabilization.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a 49,065 sf
single-tenant industrial property (2.9%) located in Farmington
Hills, MI.  The loan became REO in December 2012 subsequent to the
tenant vacating the building at lease expiration in 2010.  The
building is outfitted as flex space for an automotive industry
user; however, the servicer is contemplating a reconfiguration of
the space to accommodate a broad base of users.  Although several
interested parties have toured the space, the strategy to
stabilize the asset may be prolonged by the large inventory of
comparable space in the market.  According to Reis' January 2014
report, the Detroit flex/R&D market had an average vacancy rate of
39% for buildings built between 1990 and 1999.

Rating Sensitivity

Classes B through D remain stable due to sufficient credit
enhancement and the expectation of paydown from defeasance
proceeds of the largest loan in the pool.  Despite improved credit
enhancement levels, the limited upgrades to classes E through H
reflect the concentrated nature of the pool in conjunction with
remaining loans with maturities in 2017 and beyond.  Distressed
classes (those rated below 'B') may be subject to further
downgrades as additional losses are realized.

Fitch upgrades the following classes as indicated:

-- $28.4 million class C to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $9.5 million class D to 'AAsf' from 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
-- $11.6 million class E to 'Asf' from 'BBB+sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $6.3 million class F to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $4.2 million class G to 'BBBsf' from 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $8.4 million class H to 'BBsf' from 'Bsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $3.2 million class J to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf', assigns Stable
   Outlook.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises REs as indicated:

-- $4.2 million class K at 'CCCsf', RE 100%;
-- $3.2 million class L at 'CCsf', RE 25%.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $11 million class B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $3.2 million class M at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $2.1 million class N at 'Csf', RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-2 and X-2 have paid in full. Fitch does not rate
the class O certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the rating on
the interest-only class X-1 certificates.


BEAR STEARNS 2003-TOP12: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class H Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded two and affirmed nine classes of Bear
Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, series 2003-TOP12.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades and affirmations are based on the stable performance
of the underlying collateral pool and the considerable amount of
loans paying off.  Since the prior review, 71 loans in the amount
of $381.8 million have either paid in full or liquidated with
losses totaling $142,183.  Fitch modeled losses of 12.4% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
1.3%, including $3.3 million (0.3% of the original pool balance)
in realized losses to date.  Twenty-two loans remain in the
transaction.  Given the concentration of the remaining collateral
pool, Fitch has stressed the remaining loans by applying an
additional reduction to the net operating income and applying a
higher stressed cap rate to each loan to determine value.

As of the Feb. 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 92.2% to $90.6 million from
$1.16 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, four loans
(15.8% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes K through O. Fitch has designated five
loans (28%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes two
specially serviced assets (12.8%).

The largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-serviced
loan (7.4% of the pool), which is secured by a three-building,
60,492 square foot (sf) retail property located in Naperville, IL.
The property is part of an overall larger shopping center which
was shadow anchored by a 74,000 square foot Dominick's Grocery
Store that has since closed.  As of Jan. 2014 the property was 75%
occupied.  The loan was transferred to special servicing due to a
maturity default as the borrower was unable to refinance at the
September 2013 maturity.  On Dec. 3, 2013, the borrower filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a seven-story,
102,309 sf office property located along US-1 in Boca Raton, FL.
The expected losses are a result of the largest tenant, Waddell &
Reed Ivy Investment (39.9% of net rentable area), vacating upon
their lease expiration in February 2013.  The year-to-date net
operating income debt service coverage ratio (NOI DSCR) as of
third quarter 2013 was 1.12x.  As a result of Waddell & Ivy
leaving, the DSCR decreased when compared to prior year analysis
which reported a DSCR of 2.32x.  The property was 41% occupied as
of third quarter 2013, down from 84% as of year-end 2012.

Rating Sensitivity

Rating Outlooks on class C and classes E through K are expected to
remain Stable due to increasing credit enhancement from continued
paydown.  The Positive Rating Outlook on class D is a result of
the sizeable paydown the pool has experienced since last review;
should the performance continue, an upgrade to the class D is
likely.  The Rating Outlook on class L remains Negative due to the
potential for losses from the specially serviced loans and the
Fitch Loans of Concern.

Fitch upgrades the following classes and revises Rating Outlooks
as indicated:

   -- $17 million class C to 'AAAsf' from 'AA+sf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $7.3 million class F to 'Asf' from 'A-sf', Outlook to Stable
      from Negative.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Rating Outlooks
and REs as indicated:

   -- $13.1 million class D at 'AAsf', Outlook to Positive from
      Stable;

   -- $14.5 million class E at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $7.3 million class G at 'BBBsf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;

   -- $5.8 million class H at 'BBsf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;

   -- $5.8 million class J at 'BBsf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;

   -- $2.9 million class L at 'Bsf', Outlook Negative;

   -- $2.9 million class M at 'CCCsf', RE 100%;

   -- $2.9 million class K at 'Bsf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;

   -- $2.9 million class N at 'CCCsf', RE 90%.

Fitch does not rate the class O certificates.  Fitch previously
withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and X-2
certificates.


BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR1: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class B Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all classes of Bear Stearns Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust (BSCMSI) commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates series 2007-PWR16.

Key Rating Drivers

Fitch modeled losses of 11.4% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 13.2%, including $171.7
million (5.2% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated 45 loans (24.9%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes nine specially serviced assets (2.8%).
As of the March 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 29.7% to $2.33 billion from
$3.31 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, one loan
(0.2% of the pool) is defeased.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes L through S.

While expected losses are lower than at Fitch's last rating
action, the largest contributor to expected losses remains the
Beacon Seattle & DC portfolio (8.8% of the pool).  The loan was
initially secured by a portfolio consisting of 16 office
properties, the pledge of the mortgage and the borrower's
ownership interest in one office property, and the pledge of cash
flows from three office properties.  In aggregate, the initial
portfolio of 20 properties comprised approximately 9.8 million
square feet (sf) of office space.  The loan was transferred to
special servicing in April 2010 for imminent default and was
modified in December 2010.  Key modification terms included a
five-year extension of the loan to May 2017, a deleveraging
structure that provided for the release of properties over time,
and an interest rate reduction.  The loan was returned to the
master servicer in May 2012 and is performing under the modified
terms.

Under the modification, 11 properties have been released to date,
two of which occurred after Fitch's last rating action. These
properties included Market Square (Washington, D.C.); Key Center
(Bellevue, WA); City Center Bellevue (Bellevue, WA); 1616 North
Fort Myer Drive (Arlington, VA); Liberty Place (Washington, D.C.);
Army and Navy Building (Washington, D.C.); 1300 North Seventeenth
Street (Arlington, VA); Reston Town Center (Reston, VA);
Washington Mutual Tower (Seattle, WA); Wells Fargo Center
(Seattle, WA); and Plaza Center (Bellevue, WA).

As reported by the servicer and as of Feb. 2014, the loan has paid
down by $1.58 billion (58% of the original overall loan balance).
As of year-end (YE) 2013, the portfolio occupancy of the remaining
nine properties has fallen below 80%, down significantly from the
97% occupancy reported at issuance for the same properties.  The
portfolio continues to be subject to tenant lease rollover risk.
As of YE 2012, the net operating income was $72.2 million for the
remaining nine properties, representing a 2.5% increase from YE
2011, a 1.6% decline from YE 2010, and a 4.9% decline from NOI
reported at issuance for the same properties.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the The Mall at
Prince Georges loan (6.4%), which is secured by a 920,801 sf
regional mall located in Hyattsville, MD.  The mall was built in
1959 and renovated in 2004.  As of third quarter 2013, the
servicer-reported occupancy is 95.9%, down from 97.9% at year-end
2012. Anchor tenants at the mall are Macy's occupying 21.25% of
the net rentable area (NRA), which expires in October 2018;
JCPenney (16.16% NRA), which expires July 2016, and Target (15.40%
NRA), which expires January 2019.  Box tenants include Marshalls
(3.80% NRA), expiring Sept. 2016, Ross (3.26% NRA), expiring
Jan. 2018, and Old Navy, which recently extended its lease to
Jan. 2015.

Fitch's analysis of the property's third quarter 2013 tenant sales
report indicates in-line sales of $350/sf, a decline from the non-
anchor reported sales of $427/sf reported at issuance.  Fitch's
review of the third quarter 2013 rent roll also indicates
significant tenant roll is possible in 2017 at loan maturity,
presenting refinance risk given the potential tenant roll as well
as the low tenant sales.  The interest only loan has a servicer-
reported DSCR of 1.39x as of third quarter 2013.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the North
Grand Mall loan (1.3%), which is secured by a 297,008 sf regional
mall located in Ames, IA.  Anchor tenants at the mall include
JCPenney (31.6% NRA), which extended their lease for an additional
7 years through March 2020 and Younkers (16.8% NRA), which expires
in 2022.  Sears closed its location at the mall in 2008, after
which its store was demolished and replaced with Kohl's, TJ Maxx,
and Shoe Carnival.  The servicer-reported occupancy at the
property as of year end 2013 is 92.7%.  Fitch's analysis of the
property's tenant sales report indicates reported sales at the
property are below the industry average.  The loan commenced
principal payments in July 2012, which caused the DSCR to drop to
0.92x at year end 2012, and a further decline to 0.80x was
reported as of year end 2013.  Fitch's analysis indicates the
property may face refinance risk at maturity given the low DSCR
and tenant sales.

Rating Sensitivity

The Stable Outlooks on the super senior 'AAA' classes reflect the
seniority of these classes and sufficient credit enhancement.
Rating Outlooks on classes A-2 through A-1A remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown.  The Rating
Outlook on class A-M is revised from Negative to Stable given the
stabilized performance of the top 15 loans in the pool as well as
losses lower than expected on liquidated loans.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

   -- $86.2 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $58.2 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $88.6 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $954.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $319 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $331.4 million class A-M at 'Asf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;
   -- $273.4 million class A-J at 'CCCsf', RE 85%;
   -- $33.1 million class B at 'CCCsf', RE 85%;
   -- $33.1 million class C at 'CCCsf', RE 0%;
   -- $33.1 million class D at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
   -- $20.7 million class E at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
   -- $24.9 million class F at 'Csf', RE 0%;
   -- $29 million class G at 'Csf', RE 0%;
   -- $41.4 million class H at 'Csf', RE 0%;
   -- $2.4 million class J at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class O at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class P at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class Q at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The A-1 class is paid in full. Fitch does not rate the class S
certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the rating on the
interest-only class X certificates.


BEAR STEARNS 2007-PWR15: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 4 Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on 14 classes
in Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-PWR15 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4FL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-JFL, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. A-MFL, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. X-2, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Jul 18, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the five investment grade P&I classes were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-
value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges. The ratings on seven below investment grade P&I
classes were affirmed because the ratings are consistent with
Moody's expected loss.

The ratings on the IO classes were affirmed based on the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor or WARF) of the
referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 10.0% of
the current balance compared to 10.1% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 12.7% of
the original pooled balance compared to 12.6% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 41 compared to 44 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 11, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 26% to $2.07
billion from $2.81 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 167 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 42%
of the pool. One loan, constituting less than 1% of the pool, has
an investment-grade credit assessment. One loan, constituting less
than 1% of the pool, has defeased and is secured by US government
securities.

Forty-one loans, constituting 24% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Twenty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $147 million (for an average loss
severity of 39%). Eight loans, constituting 3% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Aiken Mall Loan ($21 million - 1% of the pool), which
is secured by a 289,248 square foot (SF) portion of a 400,000 SF
mall located in Aiken, SC. The mall is anchored by a Belk, Sears,
and JCPenney. Sears has announced it will be departing by the end
of 2014. Belk and JCPenney have not yet indicated whether they
will depart or not, but their leases both roll in the next 12
months.

The remaining seven specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $48 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (68% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 18 poorly
performing loans, constituting 18% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $117 million (a 32% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 99% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 97% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 102%, the same
as at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 11% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.40X and 1.01X,
respectively, compared to 1.47X and 1.06X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The loan with a credit assessment is the Commerce Crossings Nine
Loan ($13 million -- 0.6% of the pool), which is secured by a
500,000 SF industrial property located in Louisville, Kentucky.
The property is 100% leased to Solectron USA, a fully owned
subsidiary of Flextronics International which is a Fortune Global
500 electronics manufacturing services provider, through December
2014. The loan is amortizing on a 21 year schedule. Moody's
stressed the cash flow with a lit/dark analysis given the single
tenant occupancy and lease renewal uncertainty at this time.
Moody's credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa2 and 1.60X,
respectively, compared to Baa2 and 1.55X at the last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 22% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the World Market Center II Loan ($73 million A
Note and $188 million B Note -- 13% of the pool), which is secured
by a 1.4 million 16-story home furniture and furnishing
accessories design center and showroom built in 2006 located in
downtown Las Vegas, Nevada. A modification agreement which closed
on May 2, 2011 included the following terms: principal forgiveness
of $71,927,526; interest reduced on the A-Note ($73,072,474 IO) to
4.35% from 6.35%; no current interest on the B-Note ($187,518,699)
and 80% of the net cash flow after debt service is applied to
amortization of the B-Note. Post-modification loan payments have
been made on time. The property was 80% leased as of December 2013
compared to 73% as of March 2013. Moody's A Note LTV and stressed
DSCR are 80% and 1.31X, respectively, compared to 82% and 1.29X at
the last review. Moody's total debt LTV is 286% compared to 296%
at the last review.

The second largest loan is the 1325 G Street Loan ($100 million --
5% of the pool), which is secured by a 306,500 SF office property
located near the White House in Washington, DC. The tenant base is
concentrated in government sponsored entities. The property is 60%
leased as of January 2014 compared to 82% in March 2013. The
largest tenant, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp, which leased 21%
of the NRA, vacated at the end of its lease in May 2013. Moody's
analysis reflects a stabilized value for this asset. Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 123% and 0.75X, respectively, compared to
119% and 0.77X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Cherry Hill Town Center Loan ($88
million -- 4% of the pool), which is secured by a 511,306 SF
retail property located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a suburb of
Philadelphia. The property was 100% leased in September 2013, the
same as in December 2011. Only 4% of current leases roll within
the next 24 months. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 103% and
0.87X, respectively, compared to 102% and 0.88X at the last
review.


BLUEMOUNTAIN CLO II: Moody's Cuts Rating on Cl. D Notes to 'Ba2'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by BlueMountain CLO II Ltd.:

$24,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2018, Downgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on August 9, 2012
Upgraded to A3 (sf);

$15,500,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Floating Rate Notes Due
2018, Downgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on August 23, 2011
Upgraded to Ba1 (sf);

$11,500,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Floating Rate Notes Due
2018, Downgraded to B2 (sf); previously on August 9, 2012 Upgraded
to Ba2 (sf).

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

$215,000,000 Class A Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2018 (current
outstanding balance of $179,256,234.20), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on August 9, 2012 Upgraded to Aaa (sf);

$80,000,000 Class A-2 Senior Delayed Draw Floating Rate Notes Due
2018 (current outstanding balance of $66,699,994.11), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on August 9, 2012 Upgraded to Aaa (sf);

$23,000,000 Class B Senior Floating Rate Notes Due 2018, Affirmed
Aa1 (sf); previously on August 9, 2012 Upgraded to Aa1 (sf).

BlueMountain CLO II Ltd., issued in July 2006, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
September 2012.

Ratings Rationale

According to Moody's, the ratings downgrades on the Class C, D and
E notes are primarily a result of the deal's growing exposure to
securities that mature after the maturity of the notes (long-dated
assets). Based on Moody's calculations, long-dated assets comprise
$71.6 million or 22.5% of performing par, up from $55.2 million or
16.3% in August 2013. These investments could expose the Class C,
D and E notes to market value risk in the event of liquidation
when the notes mature. In its base case, Moody's assumes the long-
dated assets are liquidated at an average price of 69.3% at the
maturity of the notes. The liquidation price is low because about
$17.5 million, or 24% of the long-dated assets mature more than
two years after the maturity of the notes and are modelled at an
average liquidation value of 46.5% based on our CLO methodology.
Although the market values of these long-dated assets are
reasonably high at present, they could change quickly under
distressed market conditions. However, in consideration of the
current market values, Moody's also evaluated in its analysis
scenarios when the long-dated assets are liquidated at an average
price higher than 69.3%, which tempered the magnitude of the
rating downgrades.

In addition, based on the trustee report dated 23 February 2014,
the weighted average spread declined to 3.24%, from 3.79% in
February 2013, which is credit negative to the transaction. Loan
prepayments and collateral sales have reduced the amount of excess
interest proceeds that can be diverted to amortize the notes in
the event of over-collateralization test failures, thus reducing
their credit enhancement.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt maturities,
which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Long-dated assets: The presence of assets that mature after the
CLO's legal maturity date exposes the deal to liquidation risk on
those assets when the notes mature. As Moody's described earlier
in this press release, the impact is evident in this transaction.
This risk is borne first by investors with the lowest priority in
the capital structure. Moody's assumes that the terminal value of
an asset upon liquidation at maturity will be equal to the lower
of an assumed liquidation value (depending on the extent to which
the assets' maturity lags that of the liabilities) and the asset's
current market value. The deal's increased exposure owing to
amendments to loan agreements extending maturities continues. In
light of the deal's sizable exposure to long-dated assets, which
increases its sensitivity to the liquidation assumptions in the
rating analysis, Moody's ran scenarios using a range of
liquidation value assumptions. However, actual long-dated asset
exposures and prevailing market prices and conditions at the CLO's
maturity will drive the deal's actual losses, if any, from long-
dated assets.

4) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

5) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is the extent of deleveraging from unscheduled
principal proceeds.

6) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty.

7) Weighted average life: The notes' ratings are sensitive to the
weighted average life assumption of the portfolio, which could
lengthen owing to the manager's decision to reinvest into new
issue loans or loans with longer maturities, or participate in
amend-to-extend offerings. Life extension can increase the default
risk horizon and assumed cumulative default probability of CLO
collateral.

8) Post-Reinvestment Period Trading: Subject to certain
requirements, the deal can reinvest certain proceeds after the end
of the reinvestment period, and as such the manager has the
ability to erode some of the collateral quality metrics to the
covenant levels. Such reinvestment could affect the transaction
either positively or negatively.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
rating of the notes. Below is a summary of the impact of different
default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on all of the
rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches versus the
current model output, for which a positive difference corresponds
to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2153)

Class A: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +1

Class C: +2

Class D: +2

Class E: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3236)

Class A: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: -2

Class E: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $339.3 million, defaulted
par of $6.1 million, a weighted average default probability of
16.30% (implying a WARF of 2697), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 52.24%, a diversity score of 50 and a weighted
average spread of 3.28%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


BNPP IP 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to BNPP IP CLO 2014-1 Ltd./BNPP IP CLO 2014-1 LLC's
$368.5 million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 7,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary rated
      notes through the subordination of cash flows that are
      payable to the subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- The timely interest and ultimate principal payments on the
      preliminary rated notes, which S&P assessed using its cash
      flow analysis and assumptions commensurate with the assigned
      preliminary ratings under various interest-rate scenarios,
      including LIBOR ranging from 0.2365%-11.4093%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment interest diversion test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of up to
      50.0% of available excess interest proceeds into principal
      proceeds during the reinvestment period that are available
      before paying subordinated, deferred, and incentive
      management fees, uncapped administrative expenses and fees,
      and subordinated note payments.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

BNPP IP CLO 2014-1 Ltd./BNPP IP CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                   Rating     Amount (mil. $)
A-1                     AAA (sf)            234.00
A-2                     AA (sf)              51.00
B (deferrable)          A (sf)               32.00
C (deferrable)          BBB (sf)             21.00
D (deferrable)          BB (sf)              16.50
E (deferrable)          B (sf)               14.00
Subordinated notes      NR                   32.30

NR-Not rated.


CALLIDUS DEBT IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes From 'BB+'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, and D notes from Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund IV Ltd., a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
GSO/Blackstone Debt Funds Management, and removed ratings on the
class B and C notes from CreditWatch with positive implications.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-1A, A-
1B, and A-2 notes.

The upgrades reflect an improvement in overcollateralization
following paydowns to the class A-1A and A-1B notes since S&P's
July 2013 rating actions.

The transaction exited its reinvestment period in April 2012 and
commenced paying down the class A-1A and A-1B notes pro rata.  On
the January 2014 payment date, the class A-1A and A-1B notes
received a $24.42 million total principal paydown.  Currently, the
class A-1A and A-1B notes' outstanding balance is about 20% of the
original balance.  As a result of the paydown, the Feb. 7, 2014,
trustee report indicated that the class A overcollateralization
ratio has increased to 194.80% from 150.4% since S&P's last rating
action.  The transaction currently holds no defaulted assets.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, its ratings on
the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancement available
to support them, and take rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund IV Ltd.

                Rating            Rating
Class           To                From
B               AAA (sf)          AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C               AA- (sf)          A- (sf)/Watch Pos
D               BBB+ (sf)         BB+ (sf)

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Callidus Debt Partners CLO Fund IV Ltd.

Class           Rating
A-1A            AAA (sf)
A-1B            AAA (sf)
A-2             AAA (sf)


CARLYLE GLOBAL 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2014-1
Ltd./Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2014-1 LLC's $652.50
million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is collateralized loan obligation securitization
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 13,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary rated
      notes through the subordination of cash flows that are
      payable to the subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the preliminary rated notes, which S&P
      assessed using its cash flow analysis and assumptions
      commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.2356%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Carlyle Global
Market Strategies CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                  Rating                Amount
                                           (mil. $)
X                      AAA (sf)                5.00
A                      AAA (sf)              448.00
B                      AA (sf)                67.00
C (deferrable)         A (sf)                 64.00
D (deferrable)         BBB (sf)               34.00
E (deferrable)         BB- (sf)               34.50
Y                      NR                      3.50
Subordinated notes     NR                     74.00

NR--Not rated.


CFCRE COMMERCIAL 2011-C1: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on G Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of 12 classes
CFCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2011-C1 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 4, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the ten P&I classes were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges. The ratings on the two IO Classes, Classes X-A and X-B,
were affirmed based on the credit performance of the referenced
classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.4% of the
current balance compared to 2.0% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.4% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 2.0% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September 2000
and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.
Description Of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 19, the same as at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2013 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2.5% to $618.6
million from $634.5 million at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 38 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting
58% of the pool. One loan, constituting 3% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by US government securities. There are no
loans with investment-grade credit assessments.

There are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist. No loans
have been liquidated from the pool since securitization. Two
loans, representing 3% of the pool, are currently in special
servicing. The specially serviced loans are secured by multi-
family properties that were transferred to special servicing in
February 2012 due to a technical default. Both loans have the same
sponsor. Moody's did not recognize losses against these specially
serviced loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 98% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 22% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93%, compared to
94% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 10% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.2%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.40X and 1.08X,
respectively, compared to 1.30X and 1.06X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing loans represent 29% of the pool balance.
The largest loan is the GSA -- NGP Portfolio I Loan ($66.3 million
-- 10.7% of the pool), which is secured by three single-tenant
office buildings that are 100% leased to the General Services
Administration (GSA) of the US Government and total 299,378 square
feet (SF). Each building was a build-to-suit for the particular
government agency in occupancy. The principals of the sponsor, NGP
V Fund, have the largest multi-state, GSA-leased, real estate
portfolio in the U.S. The loan has a five year term with a three-
year interest-only period. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 93%
and 1.02X, respectively, compared to 92% and 1.03X at last review.

The second largest loan is the GSA -- NGP Portfolio II Loan ($63.2
million -- 10.2% of the pool), which is secured by 11 single-
tenant office buildings that are 100% leased to the GSA and total
331,832 SF. The properties were built between 2007 and 2009 and
are located across seven states. All 11 properties were build-to-
suits for a specific government agency. The principals of the
sponsor, NGP V Fund, have the largest multi-state, GSA-leased,
real estate portfolio in the U.S. The loan has a five year term
with a three-year interest-only period. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 93% and 1.03X, respectively, compared to 93% and 1.02x at
last review.

The third largest loan is the Hudson Valley Mall Loan ($50.8
million -- 8.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 765,465 SF
regional mall located in Kingston, New York - approximately 100
miles north of New York City. This is the only regional mall
within a 25 mile radius of Kingston. Occupancy as of December 2013
was 94%. Financial performance for year-end 2012 fell compared to
year-end 2011. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 97% and 1.08X,
respectively, compared to 93% and 1.1X at last review.


CIFC FUNDING 2014: Moody's Assigns 'B2' Rating on Class F Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by CIFC Funding 2014, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$372,250,000 Class A Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the "Class A
Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$52,750,000 Class B-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the "Class B-
1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$20,000,000 Class B-2 Fixed Rate Notes due 2025 (the "Class B-2
Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$47,500,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$31,750,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$30,000,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

$14,250,000 Class F Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2025 (the
"Class F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

The Class A Notes, the Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the
Class C Notes, the Class D Notes,the Class E Notes and the Class F
Notes are referred to herein, collectively, as the "Rated Notes."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to
defaults on the underlying portfolio of assets, the transaction's
legal structure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

CIFC Funding 2014 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio
must consist of senior secured loans, cash, and eligible
investments, and up to 7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The Issuer's documents require the
portfolio to be at least 70% ramped as of the closing date.

CIFC Asset Management LLC (the "Manager") will direct the
selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of
the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 62

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2700

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.85%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes increased default
probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2700 to 3105)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: 0

Class B-2 Notes: 0

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2700 to 3510)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -2

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


CITIGROUP 2005-C3: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 2 Cert. Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 12 classes and
downgraded the ratings of two classes and of Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2005-C3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-C3 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

C. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

C. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

C. A-J, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Downgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

C. A-MFL, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

C. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Downgraded to
B3 (sf)

Cl. D, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. E, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

C. XC, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Apr 18, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on P&I Classes A-1A through B were affirmed because
the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value
(LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges. The ratings on Classes C, F and G were affirmed
because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class was affirmed based on the credit
performance (or the weighted average rating factor) of the
referenced classes.

The ratings on P&I Classes D and E were downgraded due to realized
losses from liquidated loans as well as anticipated losses from
specially serviced loans.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 8.5% of the
current balance compared to 10.9% at Moody's last review.

Factors that would lead to a upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in
September 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 43 compared to 37 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate pooled certificate balance has decreased by 42% to
$831.5 million from $1.4 billion at securitization. The
certificates are collateralized by 91 mortgage loans ranging in
size from less than 1% to 6% of the pool, with the top ten loan
constituting 35% of the pool. Seven loans, constituting 5% of the
pool, have defeased and are secured by US government securities.

Twenty-two loans, constituting 26% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Fourteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $74.6 million (for an average loss
severity of 55%). Six loans, constituting 11% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. As of the February 2014 remittance
statement, the largest specially serviced loan is the 100/150
College Road West Loan ($47.9 million -- 5.8% of the pool),
formally known as the Novo Nordisk Headquarters Loan. This loan is
secured by a mortgage on two three-story Class A suburban office
buildings totaling 226,000 square feet (SF) in Princeton, New
Jersey. The loan transferred to special servicing in January 2010
for imminent monetary default and was transferred to the trust via
a deed-in-lieu in July 2012. Novo is vacating the property at its
lease expiration in December 2014 and relocating to a newly
constructed property. The special servicer indicated that the
property was offered for sale as part of a multi-asset marketing
plan.

The remaining five specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $42.7 million
loss for the specially serviced loans (55% expected loss on
average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for six poorly
performing loans, constituting 11% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $13.3 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 94% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 82% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 91% compared to
92% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
defeased, specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash
flow (NCF) reflects a weighted average haircut of 13% to the most
recently available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value
reflects a weighted average capitalization rate of 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.32X and 1.14X,
respectively, compared to 1.38X and 1.11X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 12% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the Abilene Mall Loan ($33.6 million
-- 4.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 334,000 SF portion of
a 680,000 SF single-story regional mall located in Abilene, Texas.
The mall is anchored by Dillard's, JC Penney and Sears. JC Penney
is the only anchor included in the collateral. As of December
2013, the total mall and collateral were 92% and 84% leased,
respectively. The loan matures in February 2015 and Moody's LTV
and stressed DSCR are 103% and 0.97X, respectively, compared to
101% and 0.99X at last review.

The second largest loan is the Penn Mar Shopping Center Loan
($33.3 million -- 4.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 382,000
SF retail center located in Forestville (Prince George's County),
Maryland. The center was 90% leased as of December 2013 compared
to 91% at last review. The property in anchored by Burlington Coat
Factory (17% of the net rentable area (NRA); lease expiration
August 2015), Shoppers Food Warehouse (15% of NRA; lease
expiration November 2016) and Ross Dress for Less (8% of NRA;
lease expiration January 2023). The loan matures in March 2015 and
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 75% and 1.25X, respectively,
compared to 77% and 1.23X at last review.

The third largest loan is the 250 West Pratt Loan ($32.9 million
-- 4.0% of the pool), which is secured by a 24-story 355,000 SF
office property located in downtown Baltimore, Maryland. The
property was 76% leased as of December 2013 compared to 87% leased
at last review. The largest tenant is the University of Maryland,
representing approximately 34% of the NRA, on multiple leases that
expire in 2019 and 2021. The loan matures in January 2015 and
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 106% and 0.95X, respectively,
compared to 95% and 1.06X at last review.


COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE 1999-C2: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on H Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two classes
and affirmed two classes in Commercial Mortgage Asset Trust,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-C2 as
follows:

Cl. F, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Upgraded
to A3 (sf)

Cl. G, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Upgraded
to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Aug 29, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on Classes F and G were upgraded due to significant
amortization resulting from loan payoffs and amortization as well
defeasance representing a higher share of the pool than last
review. The pool has paid down by 57% since last review and
defeasance represents 90% of the current pool balance, up from 49%
at the last review.

The rating on Class H was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class was affirmed based on the credit
performance of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 0.0% of the
current balance compared to 1.4% at Moody's prior review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 7.9% of the
original pooled balance compared to 8.1% at the prior review.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 1 compared to 2 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 95% to $40.7
million from $775 million at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by four mortgage loans ranging in size from 8% to
66% of the pool, with the remaining loan (excluding defeasance)
representing 10.5% of the pool. There are no loans with investment
grade credit assessments. Three loans, representing 89.5% of the
pool have defeased and are secured by US Government securities.

There are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist. Fifteen
loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $61.2 million (52% loss severity on
average). There are no loans in special servicing.

The sole conduit loan represents 10.5% of the pool balance. The
loan is the Regal Cinema Loan ($4.3 million -- 10.5% of the pool),
which is secured by a 17-screen stadium-style movie theater in
Medina, Ohio, approximately 30 miles south of Cleveland. Moody's
has received full year 2012 and partial 2013 financial information
on this loan. Performance on this loan has remained consistent
overall. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 68% and 1.75X,
respectively, compared to 67% and 1.77X at the last review.


CREDIT SUISSE 2003-C4: Moody's Cuts Rating on A-X Certs to Caa3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service upgraded the ratings of three classes
and downgraded one class of Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage
Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2003-C4 as follows:

Cl. J, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2013 Upgraded
to B2 (sf)

Cl. K, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2013 Affirmed
Ca (sf)

Cl. L, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2013 Affirmed
C (sf)

Cl. A-X, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Jul 25, 2013
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on Class J was upgraded based primarily on an increase
in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and amortization as
well as an increase in defeasance as a percentage of the current
pool balance. The deal has paid down 76% since Moody's last
review. Defeasance has increased to 33% of the current balance
compared to 24% at last review.

The ratings on Classes K and L were upgraded based primarily on
decrease in Moody's expected loss. Due to improving market
conditions, the recovery on the liquidated loans was higher than
Moody's anticipated at last review.

The rating on the IO Class, Class A-X, was downgraded due to a
decline in the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of its referenced classes as a result of principal
paydowns of higher quality reference classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 7.3% of the
current balance, compared to 10.7% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.9% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 3.5% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September 2000
and "Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 5 compared to 10 at Moody's last review.

In cases where the Herf falls below 20, Moody's also employs the
large loan/single borrower methodology. This methodology uses the
excel-based Large Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights
the results from the two models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type, and sponsorship. These aggregated proceeds are then further
adjusted for any pooling benefits associated with loan level
diversity, other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 payment date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by approximately 98%
to $27.0 million from $1.3 billion at securitization. The
Certificates are collateralized by nine mortgage loans ranging in
size from less than 2% to 31% of the pool. Two loans, constituting
33% of the pool, have defeased and are secured by U.S. Government
securities.

Currently, there are no loans on the master servicer's watchlist.
Thirty-one loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in
an aggregate realized loss of $37.1 million (for an average loss
severity of 25%). One loan, constituting 16% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The loan is the Park Square Center
loan ($4.3 million, 15.9% of the pool), which is secured by 58,216
square foot (SF) neighborhood shopping center located in Grove
City, Ohio. As of September 30, 2013 the property was 91% leased
compared to 100% at last review. The loan was transferred to
special servicer in July 2013 because the borrower did not pay off
the loan at maturity. The loan became REO on January 2, 2014. The
servicer has taken $1.1 million appraisal reduction.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial year 2013 operating results for 100% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 47% compared to 63% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 19% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.6%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.52X and 2.47X,
respectively, compared to 1.54X and 1.80X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's net cash flow (NCF) and
the loan's actual debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on
Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan
balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 44% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Concord Self Storage Loan ($5.0 million --
18.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 155,000 SF self storage
facility located in Concord, California. As of December 2013, the
property was 78% leased compared to 83% at last review. The loan's
performance is stable and benefitting from amortization. The loan
has amortized 37% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 38% and 2.73X, respectively, compared to 40% and 2.55X at
last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the Benchmark Electronics Inc.
Loan ($4.7 million -- 17.4% of the pool), which is secured by a
260,000 SF industrial property located in Rochester, Minnesota.
The property is 100% leased to Benchmark Electronics, Inc. with
the lease expiration in 2023. The loan is fully amortizing and has
amortized 37% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 46% and 2.35X, respectively, compared to 37% and 2.92X at last
review.

The third largest conduit loan is the Walgreens -- Omaha Loan
($2.1 million -- 7.9% of the pool), which is secured by a 15,000
SF retail property located in Omaha, Nebraska. The property is
100% leased to Walgreens with the lease expiration in 2028. The
loan has passed its ARD date of July 1, 2013. The loan has
amortized 31% since securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR
are 83% and 1.17X, respectively, compared to 75% and 1.29X at last
review.


CREDIT SUISSE 2008-C1: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on Class J Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 22 classes of Credit Suisse Commercial
Mortgage Trust (CSMC) commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2008-C1.

Key Rating Drivers

Fitch's affirmations are based on the relatively stable
performance of the underlying collateral pool.  Fitch modeled
losses of 10.1% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 12.3%, including $42.7 million (4.8%
of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.  Fitch
has designated 19 loans (40.4%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which
includes two specially serviced assets (0.9%).

As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 25.6% to $660.3 million from
$887.2 million at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, one loan
(0.1% of the pool) is defeased.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes C through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the 1100 Executive
Tower loan (13.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 16-story,
380,000-square foot office building in Orange, CA.  The loan was
modified in February 2011 and was returned to the master servicer
in May 2011.  Key terms of the modification include a five-year
extension of the loan to May 11, 2017, a bifurcation of the note
into a $62 million A-note and a $27.5 million B-note, a
contribution of approximately $12.6 million in new capital from
the borrower, and reimbursement of certain costs associated with
the modification.  In addition, the yield maintenance charge will
be waived for a lender-approved arm's length sale of the property
during the modified loan term.  Occupancy has increased
significantly to 89% in Dec. 2013 from as low as 48% in Dec. 2010.
The year-end 2013 DSCR for the A-note was 1.57x and the combined
A-note and B-note was 1.09x.  The largest tenant, Promontory Risk
Review, occupies approximately 21% of the net rentable area (NRA)
is on a month-to-month lease.  Fitch modeled a full loss on the B-
note portion.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Waikiki
Beach Walk Retail loan (19.7%), which is secured by roughly 88,000
sf of retail space in the Waikiki Beach Walk, a master-planned
project that includes hotels, condominiums, time shares,
entertainment venues, and shopping, located in Honolulu, HI.  In
2012, servicer-reported net operating income (NOI) from the
property was down by 14% compared with the issuer's underwriting,
but NOI has increased each year since 2010.  While the property
has continued to have strong occupancy above 96%, the $130.3
million interest-only loan remains highly leveraged.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the Killeen
Mall loan (12.4%), which is secured by 387,000 sf of a 558,000 sf
regional mall located in Killeen, Texas, home to Fort Hood, the
nation's largest armed forces training and development facility.
Occupancy at the property has increased significantly from 70% in
December 2010 up to 89% as of December 2013.  The property has
lease rollover risk for only 7% of the mall's NRA through year-end
2014.  The NOI of the property has been stable with a servicer-
reported NOI DSCR of 1.34 at year-end 2012 and 1.35 at year-end
2013.

Rating Sensitivity

The Rating Outlooks on all classes are expected to remain stable
as property level performance has improved.  The Rating Outlooks
on class A-J was revised to Stable as overall performance of the
pool has stabilized since Fitch's last rating action.  Additional
downgrades to the distressed classes are expected as losses are
realized.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Rating Outlooks as
indicated:

-- $48.8 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $17.3 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $258 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $87.2 million class A-1-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $25.5 million class A-2FL at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $88.7 million class A-M at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
-- $57.7 million class A-J at 'Bsf', Outlook to Stable from
   Negative;
-- $8.9 million class B at 'CCCsf', RE 100%;
-- $8.9 million class C at 'CCCsf', RE 40%.
-- $12.2 million class D at 'CCCsf', RE 0%;
-- $10 million class E at 'CCCsf', RE 0%;
-- $6.7 million class F at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $8.9 million class G at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $14.4 million class H at 'CCsf', RE 0%;
-- $6.7 million class J at 'Csf', RE 0%;
-- $548,707 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class P at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class Q at 'Dsf', RE 0%.


CREST G-STAR 2001-2: Fitch Withdraws 'Dsf' Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded to 'Dsf' and withdrawn the rating on
one class issued by Crest G-Star 2001-2, Ltd.

In January 2014, the trustee provided notice of a collateral
disposition redemption of the outstanding securities in whole.
The proceeds were subsequently liquidated and distributed in
February 2014.  Proceeds were sufficient to pay 86.8% of the
outstanding class C note balance, resulting in an 8.2% loss to the
class based on original class balance.

Fitch has taken the following actions:

--$0 class C notes downgraded to 'Dsf' from 'Csf' and withdrawn.


COMM 2004-LNB2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on $10.8MM Class G Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded four and affirmed nine classes of COMM
Mortgage Trust 2004-LNB2, commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades and affirmations reflect increasing credit
enhancement as a result of significant paydown since the last
rating action and stable projected performance.  Fitch modeled
losses of 2.1% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the
original pool balance total 2.7%, including $23.9 million (2.5% of
the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.  Fitch has
designated three loans (10.1% of the pool) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes two specially serviced assets (5.3% of the
pool).

As of the February 2013 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 90.1% to $95.5 million from
$963.8 million at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, two loans
(68.9% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes J through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-serviced
loan (3.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 59,933 square foot
(sf) retail center located in Fort Worth, TX.  The center is
occupied by a mix of predominantly small local tenants with select
national tenants.  The loan recently transferred to special
servicing in January 2014 due to maturity default.  Occupancy and
DSCR was 100% and 1.23x as of year-end (YE) 2012, respectively.
The special servicer is discussing workout options with the
borrower at this time.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced loan (2% of the pool), which is secured by an 80-pad
mobile home park located in Dundee, MI approximately 50 miles
southwest of Detroit and 30 miles north of Toledo, OH.  The loan
transferred to special servicing in October 2013 for imminent
default as the Borrower communicated inability to pay the loan off
at maturity.  The loan matured in December 2013 and is now in
maturity default.  Local counsel has been retained.  Occupancy and
DSCR was 100% and 1.16x as of YE 2012, respectively.  The Lender
currently plans to continue discussions regarding workout options.

Rating Sensitivity

Upgrades to classes D, F, H, and J are supported by increased
credit enhancement due to paydown from 10-year maturities and the
percentage of defeased loans in the remaining pool (68.9%).
However, the upgrades are constrained by pool concentration,
limited near-term paydown, and potential for future downgrade
should losses increase on the specially serviced loans.  The
distressed classes (those rated below 'B') are expected to be
subject to downgrades should realized losses be greater than
Fitch's expectations.

Fitch upgrades the following classes as indicated:

-- $19.3 million class D to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $9.6 million class F to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf', Outlook to Stable
   from Negative;
-- $10.8 million class H to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf', assign Outlook
   Stable;
-- $4.8 million class J to 'CCCsf' from 'CCsf', RE 100%.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $14.7 million class B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $9.6 million class C at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $8.4 million class E at 'AAsf', Outlook to Stable from
   Negative;
-- $10.8 million class G at 'BBsf', Outlook to Stable from
   Negative;
-- $6 million class K at 'Csf', RE 100%;
-- $1.4 million class L at 'Dsf', RE 30%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class P certificates. Fitch previously
withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and X-2
certificates.


DENALI CAPITAL: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. B-2L Notes to 'Ba2'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Denali Capital CLO VI, Ltd.

  $24,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes April 21, 2020,
  Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Confirmed
  at Aa1 (sf);

  $19,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes April 21, 2020,
  Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Confirmed at
  Baa1 (sf);

  $14,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes April 21, 2020,
  Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Affirmed
  Ba3 (sf).

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

  $100,000,000 Class A-1LR Variable Funding Notes due April 21,
  2020 (current outstanding balance of $11,167,666), Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

  $277,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes due April 21, 2020
  (current outstanding balance of $30,934,435), Affirmed Aaa(sf);
  previously on August 20, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

  $27,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes due April 21, 2020,
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
  (sf);

  $16,000,000 Class C-1 Combination Notes due April 21, 2020,
  Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on August 20, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
  (sf).

Denali Capital CLO VI, Ltd., issued in March 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of
senior secured loans, with significant exposure to middle market
loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since the last rating action in August
2013. The Class A-1L and A-1LR notes have been paid down by
approximately 51% or $42.9 million since August 2013. Based on the
latest trustee report from February 2014, the Senior Class A,
Class A, B-1L and B-2L overcollateralization ratios are reported
at 194.6%, 144.5%, 120.0%, and 106.7%, respectively, versus July
2013 levels of 139.9%, 121.9%, 110.6%, and 103.6%, respectively.

Additionally, Moody's notes that deal benefits from a Moody's
calculated WARF improvement to 3068 from the August 2013 level of
3248.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

6) Exposure to credit estimates: The deal contains a large number
of securities whose default probabilities Moody's has assessed
through credit estimates. If Moody's does not receive the
necessary information to update its credit estimates in a timely
fashion, the transaction could be negatively affected by any
default probability adjustments Moody's assumes in lieu of updated
credit estimates.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (3681)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: +2

Class B-2L: +1

Class C-1: 0

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2454)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2L: -1

Class C-1: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $134.3 million, defaulted
par of $3.1 million, a weighted average default probability of
19.86% (implying a WARF of 3068), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 51.30%, a diversity score of 39 and a weighted
average spread of 3.86%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.

A material proportion of the collateral pool includes debt
obligations whose credit quality Moody's assesses through credit
estimates. Moody's analysis reflects adjustments with respect to
the default probabilities associated with credit estimates.
Specifically, Moody's assumed an equivalent of Caa3 for assets
with credit estimates that have not been updated within the last
15 months, which represent approximately 4.6% of the collateral
pool.


DRYDEN 31: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $15MM Jr. Secured Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has assigned the
following ratings to notes issued by Dryden 31 Senior Loan Fund:

$373,500,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$72,750,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2026
(the "Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$46,750,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
A2 (sf)

$32,000,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Baa3 (sf)

$27,000,000 Class E Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
Ba2 (sf)

$15,750,000 Class F Junior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned
B2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Class A Notes, the Class B notes, the Class
C Notes, the Class D Notes, the Class E Notes and the Class F
Notes (collectively, the "Rated Notes") address the expected
losses posed to the noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due
to defaults on the underlying portfolio of loans, the
transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics of the
underlying assets.

Dryden 31 is a managed cash-flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first-lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans, and up to 10% of the portfolio
may consist of second-lien loans. The Issuer's documents require
the portfolio to be at least 75% ramped as of the closing date.

Prudential Investment Management, Inc. (the "Manager") will direct
the selection, acquisition, and disposition of collateral on
behalf of the Issuer, and it may engage in trading activity,
including discretionary trading, during the transaction's four
year reinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest
collateral principal collections constituting unscheduled
principal payments or the sale proceeds of credit risk obligations
or credit improved obligations in additional collateral debt
obligations, subject to certain conditions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue one class of
subordinated notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par
coverage tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal
proceeds to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash-flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 67

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2650

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.55%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.50%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes an increased
default probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), holding all other factors equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2650 to 3048)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2650 to 3445)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -2

Class F Notes: -3

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling, and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


EAST LANE VI: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating to Series 2014-I Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said that it assigned its
'BB+(sf)' rating to the Series 2014-I notes issued by East Lane Re
VI Ltd.

The notes cover losses in the covered area arising out of or
resulting from named storms, earthquakes (including fire following
and sprinkler leakage), severe thunderstorms, and winter storms on
a per-occurrence basis.

The notes cover losses between the attachment point of $3.00
billion and the exhaustion point of $3.30 billion.  The rating is
based on the lowest of the natural-catastrophe risk factor
('BB+'), the rating on the assets in the reinsurance trust account
('AAAm'), and the ratings on the ceding insurer (various operating
companies in the Chubb Corp., all currently rated 'AA/Stable/--').

The cedants are certain member insurers that are affiliates of
Chubb & Son, including Federal Insurance Co., Vigilant Insurance
Co., Chubb Insurance Co. of New Jersey, Chubb National Insurance
Co., Chubb Indemnity Insurance Co., Great Northern Insurance Co.,
Pacific Indemnity Co., Executive Risk Indemnity Inc., Executive
Risk Specialty Insurance Co., Chubb Custom Insurance Co., Texas
Pacific Indemnity Co., and Chubb Lloyd's Insurance Co. of Texas.

RATINGS LIST

New Rating

East Lane Re VI Ltd.
Series 2014-I Notes                          BB+(sf)


EMPORIA PREFERRED II: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'B-'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, and E notes from Emporia Preferred Funding II Ltd., a cash
flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction.
Concurrently, S&P removed its ratings on the class B, C, and D
notes from CreditWatch with positive implications, where it had
placed them on January 22, 2014.  At the same time, S&P affirmed
its ratings on class A-1, A-2, A-3, and D notes.

The transaction is currently in its amortization phase and is
paying down the notes.  The upgrades largely reflect paydowns of
$86.46 million to the class A notes in aggregate since S&P's
June 2013 rating actions.  As a result of the paydowns, the
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios increased for each class
of notes since May 2013:

   -- The A/B O/C increased to 193.04%, up from 142.08%;
   -- The class C O/C ratio is 149.17%, up from 125.03%;
   -- The class D O/C ratio is 121.55%, up from 111.63%; and
   -- The class E O/C ratio is 108.33%, up from 104.26%.

S&P's rating on the class D notes is driven by its largest-obligor
default test, which addresses the potential concentration of
exposure to obligors in the transaction's portfolio.  Based on
S&P's review, the top three assets account for approximately 15%
of the total performing portfolio.

Currently, the largest-obligor test also constrains the rating on
the class E notes.  Because of the overall performance
improvements noted above, S&P raised its rating on the class E
notes one notch above that indicated by the largest-obligor test.

S&P will continue to review whether the ratings currently assigned
to the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancement
available to support them and take rating actions as it deems
necessary.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

                         Cash flow
       Previous          implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating            rating      cushion (i)  rating
A-1    AAA(sf)           AAA(sf)     15.72%       AAA(sf)
A-2    AAA(sf)           AAA(sf)     15.72%       AAA(sf)
A-2    AAA(sf)           AAA(sf)     15.72%       AAA(sf)
B      AA+(sf)/Watch Pos AAA(sf)     15.72%       AAA(sf)
C      A+(sf)/Watch Pos  AA+(sf)     17.31%       AA+(sf)
D      BB+(sf)/Watch Pos A+(sf)      0.89%        BB+(sf)
E      CCC+(sf)          BB+(sf)     2.00%        B-(sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche breakeven
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate.

S&P also generated other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and
inter-industry correlations to assess the current portfolio's
sensitivity to different correlation assumptions assuming the
correlation scenarios outlined below.

Correlation

Scenario                     Within           Between
                           industry (%)     industries (%)
Below base case               15.0               5.0
Base case                     20.0               7.5
Above base case               25.0              10.0

                  Recovery   Correlation Correlation
       Cash flow  Decrease   Increase    decrease
       implied    implied    implied     implied    Final
Class  rating     rating     rating      rating     rating
A-1    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)     AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)
A-2    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)     AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)
A-3    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)     AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)
B      AA+(sf)    AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)     AAA(sf)    AAA(sf)
C      A+(sf)     AA+(sf)    AA+(sf)     AAA(sf)    AA+(sf)
D      BB+(sf)    BBB+(sf)   A-(sf)      A+(sf)     BB+(sf)
E      CCC+(sf)   BB-(sf)    BB+(sf)     BB+(sf)    B-(sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                    Spread        Recovery
       Cash flow    compression   compression
       implied      implied       implied       Final
Class  rating       rating        rating        rating
A-1    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-3    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
C      A+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)
D      BB+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)
E      CCC+ (sf)    B (sf)        CCC (sf)      B- (sf)

RATINGS AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

Emporia Preferred Funding II Ltd.
                  Rating
Class        To          From
A-1          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-3          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B            AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C            AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D            BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E            B- (sf)     CCC+ (sf)


GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C2: Fitch Affirms CCC Rating on Class K Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one and affirmed nine classes of GE
Commercial Mortgage Corporation (GECMC) commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates, series 2003-C2.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrade of class J and affirmation of class K is largely the
result of increased credit enhancement from principle paydown in
association with loan payoffs at maturity.  Additionally, there
were better-than-expected recoveries on the Boulevard Mall
(previously the largest loan) disposition.  The remaining
distressed classes have experienced realized losses.  Fitch
modeled losses of 16.4% of the remaining pool; expected losses on
the original pool balance total 3.8%, including $42.8 million
(3.6% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Three of the remaining five loans are specially serviced (64.9% of
the pool).

As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 98.9% to $13.5 million from
$1.21 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, one loan
(19.2% of the pool) is defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes K through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-serviced
loan (27.3% of the pool) secured by a 28,485 square foot (sf)
medical office building in Gilbert, AZ (greater Phoenix).  The
loan was transferred to special servicing in March 2012 for a non-
monetary default.  Specifically, the loan has a springing lockbox
that the borrower was unwilling to allow the master servicer to
effect.  Occupancy was 60% as of February 2014, which represents a
decline from 67% as of YE 2012.  A receivership sale has been
approved by the court and the borrower has stipulated to the
receivership sale.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is a specially-
serviced loan (12.1% of the pool) secured by a three-building
office complex with 37,856 sf and located in Colorado Springs, CO.
The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2013 due to
payment default.  Occupancy was 57.8% per the September 2013 rent
roll.  Currently there is a fully executed receivership contract
which the servicer is working to finalize by the end of April
2014.

Rating Sensitivity

The upgrade of class J is supported by an increase in credit
enhancement, higher than anticipated recoveries on the Boulevard
Mall disposition, and the defeased loan concentration (19.2% of
the pool).  Further upgrades are limited by pool concentration
(only five loans remain) and the percentage of the remaining pool
in special servicing (64.9% of the pool).  Class K is expected to
be subject to downgrades should realized losses on the specially
serviced loans be greater than Fitch's expectations.

Fitch upgrades the following class as indicated:

-- $4.6 million class J to 'Bsf' from 'CCCsf'; assigns Stable
   Outlook.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $7.4 million class K at 'CCCsf', RE 90%;
-- $1.6 million class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class O at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class BLVD-2 at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class BLVD-3 at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class BLVD-4 at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class BLVD-5 at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-1A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and BLVD-1
certificates have paid in full.  Fitch does not rate the class P
certificates. Fitch previously withdrew the ratings on the
interest-only class X-1 and X-2 certificates.


GE COMMERCIAL 2003-C2: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Cert. Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on one class,
downgraded the ratings on two classes and affirmed the rating on
one class in GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2003-C2 as follows:

Cl. J, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. L, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. X-1, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 19, 2013
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on Class J was upgraded based primarily on an increase
in credit support resulting from loan paydowns and amortization.
The deal has paid down 82% since Moody's last review.

The rating on Class K was affirmed because the rating is
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on Class L was downgraded due to higher realized losses
from specially serviced and troubled loans that have liquidated
since Moody's last review.

The rating on the IO Class, Cl. X-1, was downgraded due to a
decline in the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of its referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 10.6% of
the current balance compared to 36.8% at Moody's last review.
Moody's base expected loss plus realized losses is now 3.7% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 3.9% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of four compared to nine at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the March 10, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 82% to $13.5
million from $1.2 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by five mortgage loans ranging in size from 12% to
27% of the pool. One loan, representing 19% of the pool, has
defeased and is secured by U.S. Government securities. No loans
are currently on the master servicer's watchlist.

Twelve loans have been liquidated at a loss from the pool,
resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $43 million (49%
average loss severity) to the pooled component of the trust. Non-
pooled, or rake bonds, tied to the liquidated Boulevard Mall Loan
experienced approximately $17 million of realized losses,
resulting in a total loss to the trust is approximately $60
million. Three loans, representing 65% of the pool are currently
in special servicing. The largest specially serviced loan is the
Greenfield Medical Center II Loan ($3.7 million -- 27.4% of the
pool), which is secured by a 28,500 square foot (SF) medical
office building located in Gilbert, Arizona. The loan transferred
to special servicing in March 2012 and is currently in maturity
default. A receiver was appointed in September 2013. The property
is currently under contract and the court has approved the
receivership sale. Closing is expected by the end of March 2014.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Barrington Place
Apartments Loan ($3.4 million -- 25.4% of the pool), which is
secured by a 218-unit multifamily property located in Louisville,
Kentucky. The loan transferred to maturity in October 2013 due to
maturity default. The property was 66% leased as of October 2013,
down from 78% as of December 2012. The property was appraised for
$6.4 million as of January 2014, which is well in excess of the
current $3.4 million loan amount. The borrower previously had a
refinance commitment and has had multiple offers to purchase the
property at a price in excess of the loan amount, but no sale or
refinance has occurred. Moody's does not currently estimate a loss
for this specially serviced loan.

The third largest specially serviced loan is the 7710-7750 N.
Union Blvd. Loan ($1.6 million -- 12.1%), which is secured by a
38,000 SF office building located in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The loan transferred to special servicing in March 2013 due to
payment default and subsequently failed to payoff by its August
2013 loan maturity. The property is currently under contract via a
receivership sale that calls for a closing on or before April 15,
2014.

Moody's estimates an aggregate $1.4 million loss for two of the
three specially serviced loans (27% expected loss on average).

The Spring Lakes Apartments Loan ($2.2 million -15.9% of the pool)
is the only remaining loan that is not currently defeased or in
special servicing. The loan is secured by an 84-unit apartment
complex located in Russellville, Arkansas. The property was fully
leased as of December 2013 compared to 94% at last review. Three
of the 84-units are employee units, so economic occupancy is 95%.
The loan is well positioned to refinance by its November 2014
maturity date. The loan has a debt yield in excess of 15% based on
both actual 2012 net operating income (NOI) and annualized
September 2013 year-to-date NOI. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
56% and 1.59X, respectively, compared to 56% and 1.54% at last
review.


GE COMMERCIAL 2005-C3: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Certificates to 'D'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on the
class K and L commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
GE Commercial Mortgage Corp.'s series 2005-C3, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, to 'D (sf)' from
'CCC- (sf)'.

"We lowered our ratings following principal losses detailed in the
March 10, 2014, trustee remittance report.  The principal losses
resulted from the liquidation of the One Main Place asset (5.8% of
the pool).  According to the March 10, 2014, trustee remittance
report, the asset liquidated at a 69.6% loss severity (totaling
$44.0 million in principal losses) of its beginning scheduled
balance of $63.3 million.  Consequently, the class K certificates
incurred principal losses totaling $3.3 million, or 41.0% of the
class' original principal balance, and class L lost all of its
original principal balance of $7.9 million.  The class M, N, O,
and P certificates, which we previously downgraded to 'D (sf)',
and the class Q certificates (not rated), also experienced
principal losses that reduced their outstanding opening principal
balances to zero according to the March 10, 2014, trustee
remittance report," S&P said.


FIRST UNION 2002-C1: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class J Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on three
classes of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from
First Union National Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust Series 2002-
C1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)
transaction.

The rating actions follow S&P's analysis of the transaction,
primarily using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  S&P's analysis included a review of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets in the
pool, the transaction structure, and the liquidity available to
the trust.

The affirmations on classes J, K, and L reflect S&P's expectation
that the available credit enhancement for these classes will be
within its estimate of the necessary credit enhancement required
for the current ratings.  While available credit enhancement
levels may suggest positive rating movements, S&P's analysis
considered the reduced liquidity support available to the trust
due to ongoing interest shortfalls from the two assets with the
special servicer ($11.1 million, 41.6% of the trust balance) and
one modified loan ($15.5 million, 58.4%), which is also currently
on the master servicer's watchlist.  It also considered the
potential for additional interest shortfalls in the future from
the specially serviced assets and the relatively small pool size
remaining, which consists of three assets in the trust.

                        TRANSACTION SUMMARY

As of the Feb. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool had an aggregate pooled trust balance of $26.6 million, down
from $728.3 million at issuance.  The pool comprises one loan and
two real estate owned (REO) assets, down from 106 loans at
issuance.  To date, the transaction's principal losses totaled
$20.3 million (2.8% of the original trust balance).  The master
servicer, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., reported one loan ($15.5 million,
58.4%) on its watchlist, which was previously modified by the
special servicer.  Two assets ($11.1 million, 41.6%) are with the
special servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC.

Details on the pool's three assets are as follows:

The Madison Place loan ($15.5 million, 58.4%) is the largest loan
in the pool and is the only loan on Wells Fargo's watchlist.  The
loan is secured by a 225,983-sq.-ft. retail property in Madison
Heights, Mich.  The loan appears on the master servicer's
watchlist because of a low reported debt service coverage (DSC).
The loan was modified in October 2012, and the terms of the
modification included the extension of the loan's maturity date by
62 months to September 2016 with interest-only debt service
payments for the same 62-month period.  The reported occupancy and
DSC for year-end 2012 were 87.4% and 1.15x, respectively.

The Addison Com Center REO asset is the second-largest asset in
the pool and the largest asset with CWCapital.  The asset has a
$6.5 million trust balance (24.4% of the pooled trust balance) and
$8.0 million in total reported exposure.  The property consists of
a 96,409-sq.-ft. industrial property in Addison, Tex.  The loan
was transferred to special servicing on Nov. 9, 2011, because of
maturity default and the property became REO on March 6, 2012.  An
appraisal reduction amount (ARA) of $341,625 is in effect against
this asset.  S&P expects a minimal loss upon this asset's
resolution.

The Whiteville Shopping Center REO asset is the smallest asset in
the pool and the smallest asset with CWCapital.  The asset has a
$4.6 million trust balance (17.3% of the pooled trust balance) and
$5.2 million in total reported exposure.  The property comprises a
62,935-sq.-ft. retail property in Whiteville, N.C.  The loan was
transferred to special servicing on Feb. 29, 2012, because of
imminent monetary default and the property became REO on Nov. 20,
2012.  An appraisal reduction amount (ARA) of $1.9 million is in
effect against this asset. We expect a moderate loss upon this
asset's resolution.

With respect to the specially serviced assets noted above, a
minimal loss is less than 25%, a moderate loss is 26%-59%, and a
significant loss is 60% or greater.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

First Union National Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2002-C1

Class      Rating                           Credit
                                        enhancement (%)
J          BB+ (sf)                         67.64
K          B- (sf)                          47.09
L          CCC- (sf)                        26.54


FREMONT HOME 2006-A: Moody's Ups Rating on Cl. 1-A-2 Secs to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating of class 1-A-2
and confirmed the rating of class 1-A-1 from Fremont Home Loan
Trust 2006-A, which are backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Fremont Home Loan Trust 2006-A

Cl. 1-A-1, Confirmed at Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Caa2
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Cl. 1-A-2, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Dec 12, 2013 Caa3
(sf) Placed Under Review Direction Uncertain

Ratings Rationale

The actions primarily reflect correction of an error. In prior
rating actions, the loss allocation rule on Class 1-A-2 was based
on the prospectus supplement (prosupp) instead of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement (PSA). The transaction's remittance reports
show that the trust administrator is allocating losses to Class 1-
A-2 per the prosupp. The prosupp states that losses will be
allocated to Class 1-A-2 once the mezzanine certificates are
written down, while the PSA does not specify the same. The error
has now been corrected, and the rating actions reflect this
change.

The actions also reflect the recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The primary source of assumption uncertainty is the uncertainty in
our central macroeconomic forecast and performance volatility due
to servicer-related issues. The unemployment rate fell from 7.9%
in January 2013 to 6.6% in January 2014. Moody's forecasts an
unemployment central range of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014.
Performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent on
servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing transfers
or other policy or regulatory change can impact the performance of
these transactions.


GS MORTGAGE 2006-GG6: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on 2 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its rating on one class
of commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from GS Mortgage
Securities Trust 2006-GG6, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) transaction.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on 11 other classes from the same transaction, including
the class X-C interest-only (IO) certificates.

S&P's rating actions follow its analysis of the transaction
primarily using its criteria for rating U.S. and Canadian CMBS
transactions.  S&P's analysis included a review of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets in the
pool, the transaction structure, and the liquidity available to
the trust (for more information on the transaction's key credit
characteristics.

S&P raised rating on the class A-M certificates reflect the
available credit enhancements S&P expects for this tranche, which
S&P believes is greater than its most recent estimate of necessary
credit enhancement for the rating levels.  The upgrade also
reflects the deleveraging of the trust (13.4% in principal pay-
downs have occurred since our last review on Nov. 20, 2012) as
well as S&P's views regarding the current and future performance
of the transaction's collateral.

The affirmations on the principal- and interest-paying
certificates reflect S&P's expectation that the available credit
enhancement for these classes will be within its estimate of the
necessary credit enhancement required for the current ratings.
The affirmed ratings also reflect S&P's analysis of the credit
characteristics and performance of the remaining assets, the
transaction-level changes, and the liquidity support available to
the classes.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class X-C IO
certificates based on our criteria for rating IO securities.

RATINGS RAISED

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-GG6
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

                  Rating
Class          To           From                 Credit
                                        enhancement (%)
A-M            AA- (sf)     A+ (sf)               25.12

RATINGS AFFIRMED

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-GG6
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates

Class            Rating                    Credit
                                        enhancement (%)
A-2              AAA (sf)                  42.67
A-3              AAA (sf)                  42.67
A-AB             AAA (sf)                  42.67
A-4              AAA (sf)                  42.67
A-1A             AAA (sf)                  42.67
A-J              BB- (sf)                  11.96
B                B+ (sf)                   11.08
C                B+ (sf)                    8.89
D                B (sf)                     7.13
E                CCC (sf)                   5.82
X-C              AAA (sf)                  N/A

N/A-Not applicable.


GUGGENHEIM PRIVATE: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class C Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings on Guggenheim Private Debt
Fund Note Issuer, LLC (Guggenheim PDFNI) as follows:

   -- $292,499,994 class A notes, series A-1, at 'Asf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $44,999,995 class A notes, series A-2,at 'Asf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $90,900,011 class A notes, series A-3, 'Asf', Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $48,749,993 class B notes, series B-1, at 'BBBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $7,499,995 class B notes, series B-2, at 'BBBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $15,150,012 class B notes, series B-3, 'BBBsf', Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $60,124,994 class C notes, series C-1, at 'BBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $9,249,995 class C notes, series C-2, at 'BBsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $18,685,011 class C notes, series C-3, 'BBsf', Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $40,624,994 class D notes, series D-1, at 'Bsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $6,249,996 class D notes, series D-2, at 'Bsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $12,625,010 class D notes, series D-3, 'Bsf', Outlook
      Stable.

Key Rating Drivers

The performance of the transaction has remained relatively stable
since the last review, with the current portfolio WARF unchanged
at 'B-', and the current WAS at 9.4% versus a test requirement of
4.25%. Fitch currently considers 21.2% of the portfolio to be
rated 'CCC' or lower.  Only one issuer representing 1.9% of the
portfolio has defaulted to date, and all collateral quality and
coverage tests are passing.  The underlying portfolio as of the
Feb. 13, 2014 trustee report consists of approximately $945.8
million of performing broadly syndicated loans and private debt
investments, as well as $70.3 million in cash from principal
collections.  Since closing, approximately $48.2 million of excess
spread has been redirected to the principal collection account for
investment in collateral, increasing the degree of collateral
coverage for the notes.

Fitch analyzed the current portfolio characteristics as well as a
'Fitch-Stressed' portfolio that accounted for many of the worst-
case portfolio concentrations permitted by the indenture (which is
further detailed in Fitch's press release 'Fitch Rates Guggenheim
Private Debt Fund Note Issuer, LLC' dated March 12, 2013).  The
cash flow modeling analysis of both portfolios indicated that each
class of notes performs in line with their current ratings, and
the notes are not expected to experience rating volatility in the
near term.  Fitch therefore affirmed the ratings on the notes as
indicated above and maintained their stable outlooks.

Rating Sensitivities

The ratings of the notes may be sensitive to the following: asset
defaults, and portfolio migration, including assets being
downgraded to 'CCC', portions of the portfolio being placed on
Rating Watch Negative, overcollateralization (OC) or interest
coverage (IC) test breaches, or breach of concentration
limitations or portfolio quality covenants.

Standard sensitivity analysis was conducted on the Fitch-stressed
portfolio at close as described in Fitch's corporate CDO criteria,
with the transaction's performance in these scenarios deemed to be
within the expectations of each respective rating.  Fitch also
determined that the results of the sensitivity analysis run at
close would be sufficient for upsizes of the transaction and
therefore did not run additional sensitivities after the third
funding date.

Guggenheim PDFNI (the issuer) is a collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) transaction that closed in July 2012 and had its first,
second, and third funding dates in July 2012, October 2012, and
March 2013 respectively.  The transaction is managed by Guggenheim
Partners Investment Management, LLC and will remain in its
reinvestment period until July 2016.  An additional $285 million
of commitments has been obtained from investors and remains
outstanding, bringing total commitments for the transaction to
$1.2 billion.  Fitch expects these commitments to be drawn on one
or two future funding dates.

Fitch has also received a proposed supplemental indenture for the
CLO, which would allow the manager up to two additional funding
dates after the Feb. 11, 2014 effective date.  Fitch determined
that the proposed supplemental indenture would not adversely
affect Fitch's current ratings of the CLO liabilities.


ING IM 2014-1: Moody's Assigns B2 Rating on $7MM Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to seven classes of
notes issued by ING IM CLO 2014-1, Ltd.

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$256,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-1 Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

$23,000,000 Class A-2A Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class
A-2A Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$30,000,000 Class A-2B Fixed Rate Notes due 2026 (the "Class A-2B
Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$19,000,000 Class B Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned A2 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class C Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class C Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$18,500,000 Class D Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class D Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned Ba3 (sf)

$7,000,000 Class E Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2026 (the
"Class E Notes"), Definitive Rating Assigned B2 (sf)

The Class A-1 Notes, the Class A-2A Notes, the Class A-2B Notes,
the Class B Notes, the Class C Notes, the Class D Notes and the
Class E Notes are referred to herein, collectively, as the "Rated
Notes."

Ratings Rationale

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected losses
posed to noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to
defaults on the underlying portfolio of assets, the transaction's
legal structure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

ING 2014-1 is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans or eligible investments, and up to
7.5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans. The
underlying collateral pool is approximately 90% ramped as of the
closing date.

ING Alternative Asset Management LLC (the "Manager") will direct
the selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf
of the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, including
discretionary trading, during the transaction's four year
reinvestment period. Thereafter, purchases are permitted using
principal proceeds from unscheduled principal payments and
proceeds from sales of credit risk obligations, and are subject to
certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinated
notes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage
tests which, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds
to pay down the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1
of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in February 2014.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-case
assumptions:

Par amount: $400,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2575

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.75%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 46.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. The
performance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance of
the underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and
credit conditions that may change. The Manager's investment
decisions and management of the transaction will also affect the
performance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody's
conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was an
important component in determining the ratings assigned to the
Rated Notes. This sensitivity analysis includes increased default
probability relative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in default
probability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes
(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus the
current model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds to
higher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are held
equal:

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2575 to 2961)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: 0

Class A-2A Notes: -1

Class A-2B Notes: -2

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -1

Class D Notes: 0

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2575 to 3348)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-1 Notes: -1

Class A-2A Notes: -3

Class A-2B Notes: -3

Class B Notes: -3

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: -2

Moody's V Scores provide a relative assessment of the quality of
available credit information and the potential variability around
the various inputs to a rating determination. The V Score ranks
transactions by the potential for significant rating changes owing
to uncertainty around the assumptions due to data quality,
historical performance, the level of disclosure, transaction
complexity, the modeling and the transaction governance that
underlie the ratings. V Scores apply to the entire transaction,
rather than individual tranches.


JP MORGAN 1999-C8: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 2 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded one class of J.P. Morgan Commercial
Mortgage Finance Corp. series 1999-C8 commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates:

   -- $751,448 class G notes upgraded to 'Asf' from 'BBsf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $10.9 million class H notes affirmed at 'Dsf'; RE 95%;

   -- Class J notes affirmed at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrade to the class G notes reflects significant delevering
and high credit enhancement.  Fitch modeled losses of 4.5% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
7.5%, including losses already incurred.  Fitch has designated
four (36.7%) of the 11 remaining loans as Fitch Loans of Concern,
which includes one specially serviced asset (5.2%).  One loan
(0.8%) is currently defeased.

As of the Feb. 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 98.4% to $11.8 million from
$731.5 million at issuance.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes H and J.

Fitch stressed the cash flow of the remaining loans by applying a
haircut to the 2013 trailing 12 months or 2012 fiscal year-end net
operating income.  All the loans also underwent a refinance test
by applying an 8% interest rate and 30-year amortization schedule
to the stressed cash flow.  All loans were modeled to pay off at
maturity, and could refinance to a debt-service coverage ratio
(DSCR) above 1.25x.

The largest remaining loan in the transaction (20.3% of the
remaining balance) is secured by a 120-unit nursing home located
in Lantana, FL.  The loan performance has improved over the past
year and according to the servicer, the property remains in good
condition.

Fitch does not rate the class NR notes and previously withdrew the
ratings on the K and X notes. Classes A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E, and F
have paid in full.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The rating on the class G notes is expected to be stable as the
credit enhancement is increasing and the class continues to
delever.


JP MORGAN 2003-ML1: Fitch Lowers Rating on Class M Notes to 'CCC'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded four, downgraded one, and affirmed one
class of J.P. Morgan Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 2003-
ML1, commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades to classes H through L are due to increased credit
enhancement from significant paydowns and the relatively stable
performance of the pool.  The downgrade to class M reflects the
loss expectations from the specially serviced loans.  Fitch
modeled losses of 26.9% of the remaining pool; expected losses on
the original pool balance total 2.2%, including losses already
incurred.  The pool has experienced $6.6 million (0.7% of the
original pool balance) in realized losses to date.  Fitch has
designated six (67%) of the remaining 14 loans as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes three specially serviced assets (48.9%).
Three loans (4.6%) are currently defeased.

As of the Feb. 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 94.2% to $53.9 million from
$929.8 million at issuance.  Interest shortfalls are currently
affecting classes N and NR.

Losses are expected for the three specially serviced loans. The
remaining loans do not generate a modeled loss using the most
recent reported cash flow and cap rates between 9% and 10.5%, the
loan to value ratios for these loan range from 17.2% to 87%.
The largest specially serviced loan is a 199,366 square foot (sf)
unanchored retail property (16% of the remaining balance) located
in Dearborn, MI.  The largest tenants at the property include
Dental Center (17%), Murray's Auto (9%), and the Secretary of
State (3%).  The property was 56.1% occupied as of year-end (YE)
2012.

The second largest specially serviced loan is a 260,644 sf
anchored retail property (21%) located in Racine, WI.  The loan
transferred to the special servicer due to a modification request,
as the property has experienced cash flow issues.  Anchor tenants
at the property include Home Depot, Kmart, and OfficeMax.  The
property was 89% occupied as of September 2012.

The third largest specially serviced loan is a 93,677 sf anchored
retail property (11.9%) located in Naugatuck, CT.  The loan failed
to make its balloon payment in January 2013.  The property was
98.5% occupied as of YE 2012; however, the largest tenant at the
property (56.1%) is currently dark.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings on the class H through L notes are expected to be
stable as the credit enhancement remains high. Classes M and N may
be subject to further downgrades as losses are realized.

Fitch has taken the following actions:

   -- $11.7 million class H upgraded to 'AAsf' from 'Asf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $10.5 million class J upgraded to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $5.8 million class K upgraded to 'BBBsf' from 'BBsf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $5.8 million class L upgraded to 'BBsf' from 'B+sf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $7 million class M downgraded to 'CCCsf/RE 80%' from 'Bsf';

   -- $4.6 million class N affirmed at 'CCCsf/RE 0%'.

Fitch also marked classes F and G as 'PIF'.

Fitch does not rate the class NR notes and previously withdrew the
rating on the X-1 notes. Classes A-1, A-2, B, C, D, E, and X-2
have paid in full.


JP MORGAN 2003-PM1: S&P Lowers Rating on Certificates to 'BB-'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
E commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from JPMorgan
Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.'s 2003-PM1, a U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, to BB-
(sf), and placed it on CreditWatch with negative implications.
S&P also placed its ratings on the class F and G certificates from
the same transaction on CreditWatch with negative implications.

S&P's lowered rating on the class E certificates and the
Creditwatch Negative placements on classes E, F, and G are based
on interest shortfalls affecting these classes, as reflected in
the Feb. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report.  The current
reported interest shortfalls have affected all classes subordinate
to and including class F.  The class E and F certificates have
accumulated interest shortfalls outstanding for six consecutive
months, and class G has accumulated interest shortfalls
outstanding for seven months.

According to the February 2014 trustee remittance report, the
trust incurred monthly interest shortfalls of $351,167--primarily
because of special servicing fees of $11,749 from the four
specially serviced assets ($54.6 million; 50.0%) and interest
reallocated to pay principal amortization of $194,47)--offset this
period by other recoveries of $96,886.  S&P is currently working
with the master servicer, Midland Loan Services, and the trustee,
The Bank of New York Mellon, to identify the remaining components
of the interest shortfalls, as they were not clearly categorized
in the remittance report.

"We believe the majority of the remaining interest shortfalls are
attributable to the Palm Beach Mall asset ($43.6 million; 40.0%).
The Palm Beach Mall asset was originally secured by a 702,427-sq.-
ft. retail property in West Palm Beach, Fla.  The special
servicer, ORIX Capital Markets LLC (ORIX), has indicated that the
collateral property was sold in October 2011, and that the trust
balance is unsecured.  At the time of sale, ORIX concluded that a
final recovery determination had not been made, in view of pending
litigation between ORIX and the original borrower.  ORIX has
indicated its belief that the decision to pursue the litigation is
in the best interests of the trust. ORIX set aside a portion of
the sale proceeds to cover the interest carry on the mortgage loan
for 18 months from the time of sale, as well as expected legal
expenses in pursuing the above-referenced claim.  It is our
understanding from ORIX that the litigation is ongoing," S&P
noted.

As of the Feb. 12, 2014, trustee remittance report, the collateral
pool had an aggregate trust balance of $109.1 million, down from
$1.2 billion at issuance.  The pool currently has 21 assets, down
from 148 loans at issuance.  To date, the transaction has
experienced losses totaling $34.6 million.

Over the next few months, S&P will continue to monitor the
interest shortfalls and will gather additional information on the
shortfalls from the master servicer and trustee, as well as
receive an updated status on the ongoing litigation on the Palm
Beach Mall asset from the special servicer.  S&P's analysis will
include evaluating the timing of the accumulated interest
shortfall balances on these classes. If these accumulated interest
shortfalls remain outstanding for an extended period of time, S&P
might lower some of the ratings to 'D (sf)'.

RATING LOWERED AND PLACED ON CREDITWATCH NEGATIVE

JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2003-PM1
                Rating
Class  To                   From      Credit enhancement (%)
E      BB- (sf)/Watch Neg   BBB- (sf)                  73.01

RATINGS PLACED ON CREDITWATCH NEGATIVE

JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2003-PM1
                Rating
Class  To                   From      Credit enhancement (%)
F      B+ (sf)/Watch Neg    B+ (sf)                    58.43
G      CCC (sf)/Watch Neg   CCC (sf)                   46.50


JP MORGAN 2006-CIBC15: Fitch Cuts Rating on Cl. A-J Notes to 'Csf'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded three distressed classes and affirmed
15 classes of JP Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-CIBC15
(JPM 2006-CIBC15).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch modeled losses of 15.4% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 22.8%, including $247.8
million (11.7% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated 44 loans (50.4%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes six specially serviced assets (4.8%).
As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 28.4% to $1.52 billion from
$2.12 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, seven
loans (3.8% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes A-J through NR.

The largest contributor to expected losses remains the Warner
Building (19.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 616,135 square
foot (sf) landmark office property located in Washington, D.C.,
approximately three blocks from the White House.  In January 2012,
the property experienced a significant decline in occupancy from
99% to 49% as a result of the bankruptcy and vacancy of the
largest tenant, Howrey Simon Arnold & White (51% of NRA).  As of
the January 2014 rent roll, the property occupancy has increased
to 70%.  The largest tenants are Baker Botts, LLP (26%, lease
expiration 2020), Cooley LLP (18%, lease expiration 2028), General
Electric Company (8%, lease expiration 2016), and Live Nation,
parent of the Warner Theater, (7%, lease expiration 2023 after
recent extension).  The borrower continues to aggressively market
the vacant space and discussions continue with several prospective
tenants.  The loan has a servicer reported June 2013 year-to-date
(YTD) debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 0.30x, however, at
least two tenants had significant free rent periods during the
period that have now burned off.  The total rental income per the
January 2014 rent roll increased by approximately 40% from the
January 2013 rent roll.  The loan remains substantially
overleveraged.

The next largest contributor to expected losses remains the
Scottsdale Plaza Resort (3.8% of the pool), which is secured by a
404-key hotel located in Scottsdale, AZ.  The property's
performance continues to lag its competitive set in terms of
occupancy, average daily rate (ADR), and revenue per available
room (RevPAR).  According to the December 2013 STR report, the
property's trailing 12 month (TTM) occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR were
52.2%, $127.81, and $66.74, respectively, with only 77.1% RevPAR
penetration.  The most recent servicer reported DSCR for YTD
September 2013 was 0.56x, which is in line with the prior two
years' performance, but significantly below the reported issuance
DSCR of 1.93x.  The loan remains current as the borrower has been
funding debt service shortfalls out of pocket.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the defaulted
4001 North Pine Island Road (1.3% of the pool), which is secured
by a 119 unit corporate apartment complex located in Sunrise, FL.
The loan transferred into special servicing in December 2008 due
to monetary default.  The foreclosure action was filed in December
2010; however, zoning violations stalled the process.  Per the
Servicer, the issues have been resolved and foreclosure is
expected to be completed by early summer.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Although credit enhancement for class A-4, A-SB and A-1A remains
the same, class A-SB is a scheduled balance class, and is senior
in priority to class A-1A and A-4 with respect to its scheduled
principal payments, and is expected to be paid in full by
September 2015, so therefore retains its 'AAAsf' and Stable
Outlook.  Classes A-1A and A-4 may be subject to further downgrade
should the larger performing loans show increased deterioration or
if interest shortfalls become likely.  It should be noted that
three of the top 15 loans are secured by properties currently
leased to single tenants.  The distressed classes A-M and A-J are
subject to further downgrade as additional losses are realized.

Fitch downgrades the following classes as indicated:

   -- $164.2 million class A-J to 'Csf' from 'CCsf', RE 0%;
   -- $11.5 million class B to 'Dsf' from 'Csf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class C to 'Dsf' from 'Csf', RE 0%.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $874.5 million class A-4 at 'AAsf', Outlook Negative;
   -- $39.1 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $216.5 million class A-1A at 'AAsf', Outlook Negative;
   -- $211.8 million class A-M at 'CCCsf', RE 75%.
   -- $0 class D at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class E at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class F at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class G at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class H at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class J at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class P at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1 and A-3 certificates have paid in full. Fitch
previously withdrew the ratings on the interest-only class X-1 and
X-2 certificates.


JP MORGAN 2013-C10: Fitch Affirms Bsf Rating on Class F Certs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 13 classes of J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust. (JPMCC) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2013-C10.

Key Rating Drivers

Fitch's affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool.  There have been no delinquent or
specially serviced loans since issuance.  Fitch reviewed the most
recently available quarterly financial performance of the pool as
well as updated rent rolls for the top 15 loans, which represent
84.2% of the transaction.

As of the February 2013 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 0.5% to $1.27 billion from
$1.28 billion at issuance.  No loans are defeased.  Deminimus
interest shortfalls are currently affecting class NR.

The largest loan in the pool (10.2%) is secured by a 771,233
square foot (sf) regional mall located in Hackensack, NJ.  The
mall is anchored by Saks Fifth Avenue (collateral) and
Bloomingdales (non-collateral).  Approximately 30% of the total
collateral (473,549 sf), including the Saks Fifth Avenue lease is
expiring in 2015. Fitch considered the 2015 tenant rollover risk
in its cash flow analysis of the loan.  As of nine months -ended
Sept. 30, 2013, occupancy and debt service coverage ratio (DSCR)
were a reported 93.3% and 3.17x respectively.

The second largest loan in the pool (8.8%) is secured by a 1.5
million sf office complex in Pittsburg, PA.  No tenant represents
more than 7% of the collateral, and the top three tenants' leases
expire in 2018 or after.  As of nine months -ended Sept. 30, 2013,
occupancy and DSCR were a reported 85.9% and 2.23x respectively.

Rating Sensitivity

All classes maintain Stable Outlooks.  Due to the recent issuance
of the transaction and stable performance, Fitch does not foresee
positive or negative ratings migration until a material economic
or asset level event changes the transaction's portfolio-level
metrics.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

-- $56.6 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $87.2 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $22.4 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $185 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $430.1 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $106.7 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $107.1 million class A-S at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
-- Interest only class X-A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $84.7 million class B at 'AA-sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $55.9 million class C at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $47.9 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
-- $30.4 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable;
-- $12.8 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate class X-B and the class NR certificates.


JP MORGAN 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2014-FL4's $755.3 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2014-FL4.

The note issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by nine commercial mortgage loans with an
aggregate principal balance of $755.3 million, secured by the fee
and leasehold interests in 61 properties across 10 U.S. states,
Mexico, and Canada.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 13,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the underlying
collateral's economics, the trustee-provided liquidity, the
collateral pool's relative diversity, and S&P's overall
qualitative assessment of the transaction.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-FL4

Class       Rating                    Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)                 392,400,000
X-CP        BB (sf)              755,300,000(ii)
X-EXT(i)    BB (sf)              755,300,000(ii)
B           AA- (sf)                 110,300,000
C           A (sf)                    77,000,000
D           BBB- (sf)                135,700,000
E           BB (sf)                   39,900,000

(i) Non-offered certificates.
(ii) Notional balance.


KKR FINANCIAL 2013-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on KKR
Financial CLO 2013-1 Ltd./KKR Financial CLO 2013-1 LLC's $458.50
million floating-rate notes following the transaction's effective
date as of Nov. 5, 2013.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

An effective date rating affirmation reflects S&P's opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
S&P by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that S&P assigned on the transaction's
closing date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of
certain information that S&P used in its analysis and the results
of its review based on the information presented to S&P.

S&P believes the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of S&P's criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager.  The ratings may also reflect S&P's
assumptions about the transaction's investment guidelines.  This
is because not all assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash-flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P noted.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P added.

On an ongoing basis after S&P issues an effective date rating
affirmation, it will periodically review whether, in its view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and S&P will take rating actions as
it deems necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

KKR Financial CLO 2013-1 Ltd./KKR Financial CLO 2013-1 LLC

Class                 Rating                 Amount
                                           (Mil. $)
A-1                   AAA (sf)               311.50
A-2A                  AA (sf)                 45.00
A-2B                  AA (sf)                 16.50
B (deferrable)        A (sf)                  35.00
C (deferrable)        BBB (sf)                24.50
D (deferrable)        BB (sf)                 26.00


KODIAK CDO I: S&P Lowers Rating on 5 Note Classes to 'CC'
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on the
class A-2, C, D-1, D-2, and D-3 notes from Kodiak CDO I Ltd. to
'CC (sf)'.  Kodiak CDO I Ltd. is a U.S. collateralized debt
obligation (CDO) transaction collateralized mostly by trust
preferred securities (TruPs) issued by mortgage REIT (structured
finance) assets.

S&P had previously lowered its rating on the class B notes to 'D
(sf)' on Feb. 19, 2014, after the transaction missed its interest
payment to the class B notes, triggering an event of default under
the transaction documents.

The trustee issued a notice of acceleration on March 7, 2014.  As
a result of the acceleration, S&P believes that all available
interest and principal proceeds payable in the waterfall below the
class A-1 interest will be used to pay down the class A-1 notes
principal.  S&P believes that, barring any cure of the default,
the nondeferrable class A-2 notes will not receive the interest
payment due on the next payment date.  S&P lowered its rating on
the class A-2 notes to 'CC (sf)' in accordance with its criteria.
S&P expects to lower the rating on the class A-2 notes to 'D (sf)'
after the next payment date if the A-2 notes do not receive the
interest due at that time.

S&P lowered its ratings on the class C, D-1, D-2, and D-3 notes to
'CC (sf)' to reflect its view that there is a low probability that
the noteholders will receive their principal and deferred interest
in full on the final maturity date.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
currently assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit
enhancement available to support them, and S&P will take rating
actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LOWERED

Kodiak CDO I Ltd.
                         Rating         Rating
Class                    To             From
A-2                      CC (sf)        BB- (sf)
C                        CC (sf)        CCC- (sf)
D-1                      CC (sf)        CCC- (sf)
D-2                      CC (sf)        CCC- (sf)
D-3                      CC (sf)        CCC- (sf)

OTHER OUTSTANDING RATINGS

Kodiak CDO I Ltd.
Class                    Rating
A-1                      BB+ (sf)
B                        D (sf)
E-1                      CC (sf)
E-2                      CC (sf)
F                        CC (sf)
G                        CC (sf)
H                        CC (sf)


LB-UBS 2005-C1: Moody's Affirms 'C' Rating on 3 Cert. Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
classes and affirmed 12 classes of LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2005-C1, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2005-C1 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aa2 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
Ca (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on three P&I classes were upgraded primarily due to an
increase in credit support since Moody's last review, resulting
from paydowns and amortization, as well as Moody's expectation of
additional increases in credit support resulting from the payoff
of loans approaching maturity that are well positioned for
refinance. The pool has paid down by 14% since Moody's last
review. In addition, loans constituting 40% of the pool that have
debt yields exceeding 10.0% are scheduled to mature within the
next 12 months.

The ratings on Classes A-1A, A-4 and D through G were affirmed
because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-
value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within
acceptable ranges. The ratings on Classes H through M were
affirmed because the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected
loss. The rating on the IO Class, Class X-CL was affirmed based on
the credit performance of it's referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 5.9% of the
current balance, the same as at Moody's last review. Moody's base
expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.0% of the original
pooled balance compared to 5.4% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to a upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 10 compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2013 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 14% to $783.6
million from $1.52 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 57 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 19% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 54% of
the pool. Two loans, constituting 16% of the pool, have
investment-grade credit assessments. Three loans, constituting 23%
of the pool, have defeased and are secured by US government
securities.

Fifteen loans, constituting 11% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Eleven loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in an
aggregate realized loss of $30.1 million (for an average loss
severity of 37%). Three loans, constituting 7% of the pool, are
currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Great Neck Roslyn Portfolio ($24.7 million -- 3.2% of
the pool), which is secured by six office buildings located in
western Long Island, New York (four in Roslyn Heights and two in
Great Neck). The loan was originally secured by two additional
office buildings, however these buildings were defeased in 2009
and subsequently released. The portfolio transferred to special
servicing in 2010 due to imminent monetary default. Two properties
were sold in July 2013, with the proceeds paying down outstanding
advances. As of January 2014 the portfolio was approximately 50%
leased. The special servicer indicated it is in the process of
stabilizing the reamining four properties and plans to sell them
together as a portfolio.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Atlantic
Building Loan ($19.0 million -- 2.4% of the pool), which is
secured by a 316,000 square foot (SF), Class B office building
located in the Center City submarket of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The loan transferred to special servicing in April
2010 due to imminent monetary default and a receiver was appointed
in March 2011. The asset was sold in July 2012 and financed via a
loan assumption. As part of the loan assumption the new borrower
paid down the loan $8.5 million and the maturity date was extended
to January 2015. A $19.0 million loan was ultimately assumed by
the new borrower with interest only payments due through the
maturity date. As of February 2014, the property was 87% leased
compared to 50% at last review. Per the servicer, the loan is
expected to pay off at maturity. Moody's does not expect a loss
from this loan.

The remaining specially serviced loan, which represents 1% of the
pool, is secured by an unanchored retail center located in Dallas,
Texas. Moody's estimates an aggregate $26.2 million loss for the
specially serviced loans (81% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for three poorly
performing loans, constituting about 1% of the pool, and has
estimated an aggregate loss of $1.5 million (an 17% expected loss
based on a 50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2012 operating results for 98% of the
pool, and full or partial year 2013 operating results for 63% of
the pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 85% compared to
94% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 7.0% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.51X and 1.19X,
respectively, compared to 1.43X and 1.10X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the Mall Del Norte
Loan ($113.4 million -- 14.5% of the pool), which is secured by
the borrower's interest in a 1.2 million SF regional mall (683,000
SF as collateral) located three miles north of the Mexican border
in Laredo, Texas. The property is virtually 100% leased, which is
similar to the prior two reviews. The loan is interest only for
its entire term and matures in December 2014. Moody's credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa2 and 1.48X, respectively,
compared to Baa3 and 1.41X at last review.

The second largest loan with a credit assessment is the United
States District Courthouse Loan ($10.6 million -- 1.3% of the
pool), which is secured by a 47,000 SF office building located in
El Centro, California. The building is 100% leased to the US
Magistrate Courthouse through September 2019. The loan fully
amortizes over the term and has already paid down 52% since
securitization. Moody's credit assessment and stressed DSCR are
Aaa and 2.08X, respectively, compared to Aaa and 1.81X at last
review.

The top three conduit loans represent 25% of the pool. The largest
conduit loan is the 2100 Kalakaua Avenue Loan ($130.0 million --
16.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 96,000 SF luxury retail
shopping center located in Honolulu, Hawaii. The property is also
encumbered by a $15.0 million mezzanine loan. The tenants consist
of Gucci, Chanel, Tiffany & Co, Coach, Yves Saint Laurent, Hugo
Boss and Tod's. As of December 2013, the property was 96% leased
compared to 85% as of September 2012. The well located luxury
retail property commands premium rents ($172 PSF) relative to the
Honolulu County average of $54 PSF. Property performance has
improved from an increase in rental revenue due to scheduled rent
increases. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 74% and 1.16X,
respectively, compared to 80% and 1.08X at Moody's prior review.

The second largest loan is the Concord Portfolio Loan ($35.4
million -- 4.5% of the pool), which is secured by three garden
style apartment communities located in Houston, Texas. As of
December 2013, the weighted average occupancy was 91%, while
individual occupancies range from 82% to 95%. The loan is
benefiting from amortization and matures in January 2015. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 82% and 1.12X, respectively, compared to
86% and 1.07X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Crown Center Loan ($29.2 million --
3.7% of the pool), which is secured by five, three-story office
buildings located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As of December
2013, the weighted average occupancy was 55% leased compared to
77% as of October 2012. Bank of America, which occupied about 30%
of the NRA, vacated at the end of its lease in March 2013. The
loan is currently on the watchlist due to the drop in occupancy.
Moody's stabilized the value of the property, using market vacancy
and slightly than higher market rents. Moody's LTV and stressed
DSCR are 106% and 0.99X, respectively, compared to 128% and 0.82X
at last review.


LB-UBS 2005-C3: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. X-CBM Certs to 'Caa1'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on six classes
and affirmed the ratings on 11 classes in LB-UBS Commercial
Mortgage Securities Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-C3 as follows:

Cl. A-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Downgraded to A3 (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Baa1 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. CBM-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Upgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. CBM-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. ML-1, Affirmed Baa2 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

Cl. ML-2, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. X-CBM, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013
Upgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. X-CL, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the pooled Classes A-J, B and C were upgraded based
primarily on an increase in credit support resulting from loan
paydowns and anticipated amortization and paydowns. The upgrade of
two rake bond classes, CBM-2 and CBM-3, and the related IO class,
Class X-CBM, are directly related to improved financial
performance of its reference loan, The Courtyard by Marriott
Portfolio Loan.

The ratings on Classes A-5, A-M, D and E were affirmed because the
transaction's key metrics, including Moody's loan-to-value (LTV)
ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and the
transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are within acceptable
ranges. The ratings on Classes F through J were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

The rating on the IO class X-CL was affirmed based on the weighted
average rating factor of the referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 5.0% of the
current balance, compared to 6.8% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 6.0% of the
original pooled balance compared to 7.2% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in April 2005 and
"Moody's Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower
Transactions" published in July 2000.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 9 compared to 12 at Moody's last review.

When the Herf falls below 20, Moody's uses the excel-based Large
Loan Model v 8.6 and then reconciles and weights the results from
the conduit and large loan models in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate pooled certificate balance has decreased by 42% to $1.15
billion from $1.96 billion at securitization. The total deal
balance is $1.24 billion due to two non-pooled rake bonds totaling
$51.2 million that are tied to the 200 Park Avenue Loan and three
rake bonds totaling $37.1 million that are tied to the Courtyard
by Marriott Portfolio Loan. The Certificates are collateralized by
77 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than 1% to 24% of the
pool. There are eight defeased loans, representing 6% of the pool,
which are collateralized by U.S. Government securities. The pool
contains two loans, representing 26% of the pool, with investment
grade credit assessments.

Twenty eight loans, representing 16% of the pool, are on the
master servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans which
meet certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of
the CRE Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part
of our ongoing monitoring of a transaction, Moody's reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
impact performance.

Seventeen loans have been liquidated from the pool since
securitization resulting in an aggregate realized loss of $61.6
million (43% average loss severity). Two loans, representing 2% of
the pool are currently in special servicing. The specially
serviced loans are secured by an office and retail property. The
servicer has recognized an aggregate $8.9 million appraisal
reduction for the two specially serviced loans. Moody's has
estimated an aggregate $16.9 million loss for the specially
serviced loans.

Moody's assumed a high default probability for seven poorly
performing loans representing 5% of the pool and has estimated an
$8.0 million aggregate loss (15% expected loss based on a 50%
probability of default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's was provided with full year 2012 and partial year 2013
operating results for 93% and 90% of the pool, respectively.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 89% compared to 99% at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and specially serviced
and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF) reflects a
weighted average haircut of 12% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.5%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.37X and 1.20X,
respectively, compared to 1.39X and 1.09X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The largest loan with a credit assessment is the 200 Park Avenue
Loan ($278.5 million -- 24.2% of the pool), which represents a
pari passu interest in a $900.0 million first mortgage loan
secured by a 2.9 million square foot (SF) Class A office building
located near Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The property
is also known as the MetLife Building. The property also secures a
$51.2 million junior non-pooled component which is the security
for non-pooled Classes ML-1 and ML-2. The property is primarily
leased to legal, finance, insurance and real estate companies. The
property was 96% leased as of September 2013 compared to 93% at
last review. Moody's credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa2
and 1.23X, respectively, the same as at last review.

The second loan with a credit assessment is the 1919 Park Avenue
Loan ($15.0 million -- 1.3% of the pool), which is secured by a
209,000 SF office building located in Weehawken, New Jersey. The
property is currently 100% leased to Savvis Communications
Corporation through January 2031. Savvis is a data center
operator. CenturyLink acquired Savvis in 2011. Moody's analysis
incorporated a lit dark analysis due to the single tenant
exposure. Moody's credit assessment and stressed DSCR are Aaa and
2.90X, respectively, the same as at last review.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 28% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the 900 North Michigan Avenue Loan
($179.9 million -- 15.7% of the pool), which is secured by a mixed
use property consisting of a vertical mall component (475,400 SF),
an office component (349,900 SF) and an attached parking garage
(1,660 spaces) located at the northern end of Chicago's
Magnificent Mile. The collateral is part of a larger complex which
includes a 343-room Four Seasons Hotel and 106 residential
condominium units. As of March 2013, the property was 93% leased
compared to 96% at last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
68% and 1.23X, respectively, compared to 74% and 1.14X at last
review.

The second largest loan is the Courtyard by Marriott Portfolio
Loan ($105.6 million -- 9.2% of the pool), which represents a
participation interest in a $414.9 million first mortgage loan
secured by a portfolio of 64 limited service hotels located in 29
states. The property also secures a $37.1 million junior non-
pooled component which is the security for non-pooled Classes CBM-
2, CBM-3 and an interest-only strip related to those rake bonds,
Class X-CBM. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 83% and 1.43X,
respectively, compared 88% and 0.92X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Decorative Center of Houston Loan
($30.8 million -- 2.7% of the pool), which is secured by a 509,000
SF design center located in Houston, Texas. The design center
offers traditional and contemporary residential furnishings,
fabrics, architectural products, flooring, wall coverings,
lighting, kitchen and bath products, and accessories. The property
has 40 plus showrooms that display and sell over 1,200
manufacturers. As of November 2013, the property was 84% leased
compared to 79% at last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
85% and 1.28X, respectively, compared to 98% and 1.10X at last
review.


LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2005-1: Moody's Cuts Rating on $131MM of RMBS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of nine
tranches and upgraded the rating of one tranche from one RMBS
transaction, backed by Alt-A RMBS loans issued by Lehman Mortgage
Trust 2005-1.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Lehman Mortgage Trust 2005-1

Cl. 1-A1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 1-A3, Upgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Ca (sf)

Cl. PAX, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. 4-A2, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A6, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A7, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A8, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 4-A9, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed Caa1 (sf)

Cl. 6-A1, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Apr 10, 2013
Affirmed B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings downgraded are a result of deteriorating performance
and higher than expected losses on bonds where the credit support
has been depleted or projected to be depleted. In addition, the
ratings of Class 1-A1 and Class 1-A3 were re-aligned at Caa2 (sf)
because the trustee is allocating losses pro rata to the Class 1-
A1 and the Class 1-A3 bonds pursuant to the pooling and servicing
agreement. Previously the trustee indicated losses would be
allocated first to Class 1-A3 and then to Class 1-A1, as described
in the prospectus supplement.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.7% in February 2014 from
7.7% in February 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central
range of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this
central scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


LEHMAN MORTGAGE 2006-1: Moody's Cuts Rating on 4-A1 Certs to Caa2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the rating of one tranche
issued by Lehman Mortgage Trust 2006-1. The resecuritization is
backed by the class 2-A1 issued by Lehman Mortgage Trust 2005-1
which is backed by Alt-A loans issued in 2005.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Lehman Mortgage Trust 2006-1

Cl. 4-A1, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on May 12, 2011
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating downgraded is a result of higher than expected losses
on the class 4-A-1 bond and the projected depletion of credit
support provided by the class 4-A2 bond. The actions also reflect
the recent performance of the underlying pool backing Lehman
Mortgage Trust 2005-1 and Moody's updated loss expectations on the
underlying RMBS bonds.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Resecuritizations" published in February 2014.

The methodology used in determining the ratings of the underlying
bonds was "US RMBS Surveillance Methodology" published in November
2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.7% in February 2014 from
7.7% in February 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central
range of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this
central scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


MSIM PECONIC: Moody's Affirms 'B1' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by MSIM Peconic Bay, Ltd.:

  $19,500,000 Class C Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due 2019,
  Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on August 21, 2013 Upgraded to
  A1 (sf)

  $20,000,000 Class D Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due 2019,
  Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on August 21, 2013 Affirmed
  Ba2 (sf)

Moody's also affirmed the ratings on the following notes:

  $240,000,000 Class A-1-A Floating Rate Notes Due 2019 (current
  outstanding balance of $54,452,453.86), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on August 21, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $60,000,000 Class A-1-B Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on August 21, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $14,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Notes Due 2019, Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on August 21, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

  $16,000,000 Class E Floating Rate Deferrable Notes Due 2019
  (current outstanding balance of $10,417,286.23), Affirmed B1
  (sf); previously on August 21, 2013 Affirmed B1 (sf)).

MSIM Peconic Bay, Ltd., issued in August 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July
2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since August 2013. The Class A-1-A notes
have been paid down by approximately 41.2% or $38.1 million since
August 2013. Based on the trustee's February 2014 report, the
over-collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A/B, Class C,
Class D and Class E notes are reported at 145.14%, 126.01%,
111.01% and 104.52%, respectively, versus August 2013 levels of
135.42%, 121.23%, 109.46% and 104.19%, respectively.

Moody's notes that the deal also benefited from an improvement in
the weighted average recovery rate of the underlying portfolio
since the last rating action in August 2013. Based on the
trustee's February 2014 report, the weighted average recovery rate
is 53.2% versus 51.7% in August 2013.

Methodology Used for the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
February 2014.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors and
circumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade of
the ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)
uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)
the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debt
maturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positively
or negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behavior
and b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO
documentation by different transactional parties owing to embedded
ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of better
credit quality, or better credit performance of assets
collateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,
can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shift
in credit quality or performance of the collateral can have
adverse consequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in this
transaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal
proceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLO
could accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan
market and collateral sales by the manager, which could have a
significant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that are
faster than Moody's current expectations will usually have a
positive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the
highest payment priority.

5) Recovery of defaulted assets: Fluctuations in the market value
of defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that Moody's
assumes as having defaulted could result in volatility in the
deal's OC levels. Further, the timing of recoveries and whether a
manager decides to work out or sell defaulted assets create
additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed defaulted recoveries
assuming the lower of the market price and the recovery rate in
order to account for potential volatility in market prices.
Realization of higher than assumed recoveries would positively
impact the CLO.

6) Long-dated assets: The presence of assets that mature after the
CLO's legal maturity date exposes the deal to liquidation risk on
those assets. This risk is borne first by investors with the
lowest priority in the capital structure. Moody's assumes that the
terminal value of an asset upon liquidation at maturity will be
equal to the lower of an assumed liquidation value (depending on
the extent to which the asset's maturity lags that of the
liabilities) or the asset's current market value.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impact
of different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on
all of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notches
versus the current model output, for which a positive difference
corresponds to lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (2203)

Class A-1-A: 0

Class A-1-B: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3305)

Class A-1-A: 0

Class A-1-B: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Class E: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations," published in February 2014.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $178.2 million, defaulted
par of $3.1 million, a weighted average default probability of
18.74% (implying a WARF of 2754), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 53.74%, a diversity score of 49 and a weighted
average spread of 3.32%.

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of the
collateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subject
to stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLO
liability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability from
the credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectation
of the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recovery
rate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of
the assets in the collateral pool. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


MORGAN STANLEY 2006-XLF: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on X-1 Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the rating on one interest only
(IO) class of Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-XLF. Moody's rating action
is as follows:

Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Apr 11, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on the IO class was affirmed based on the weighted
average rating factor or WARF of the referenced classes. Moody's
does not rate the outstanding P&I classes, Classes J, K, and L, a
rake class, Class N-RQK, and an IO class, Class X-2.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The rating of an IO class is based on the credit performance of
its referenced classes. An IO class may be upgraded based on a
lower weighted average rating factor or WARF due to an overall
improvement in the credit quality of its reference classes. An IO
class may be downgraded based on a higher WARF due to a decline in
the credit quality of its reference classes, paydowns of higher
quality reference classes or non-payment of interest. Classes that
have paid off through loan paydowns or amortization are not
included in the WARF calculation. Classes that have experienced
losses are grossed up for losses and included in the WARF
calculation, even if Moody's has withdrawn the rating.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions"
published in July 2000.

Description Of Models Used

Moody's review incorporated the use of the excel-based Large Loan
Model v 8.6. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 payment date, the transaction's trust
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $38 million
from $1.6 billion at securitization. The pool has experienced
$46.3 million of cumulative bond losses to date and has interest
shortfalls totaling $1.5 million as of the current payment date.

The only loan remaining in the pool, the ResortQuest Kauai Loan
($34 million pooled balance and a $4 million non-pooled or rake
bond) is secured by a 307-key full service hotel in Kauai, Hawaii.
This loan transferred to special servicing in January of 2009 due
to imminent default. In October of 2010, the loan was modified and
extended through November 2015. The hotel has been reflagged and
is being operated by a Marriott Courtyard franchise. The
property's net cash flow for the first nine months of 2013 has
shown strong growth over the same period in 2012. The property's
RevPAR improved by 43% to achieve $98.23, and NCF increased to
$2.1 million during the first nine months of 2013. The 2014
budgeted NCF is just over $5.0 million.


NEUBERGER BERMAN XVI: S&P Assigns Prelim BB- Rating on Cl. E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Neuberger Berman CLO XVI Ltd./Neuberger Berman CLO XVI
LLC's $522.50 million floating- and fixed-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 10,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary rated
      notes through the subordination of cash flows that are
      payable to the subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The asset manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the preliminary rated notes, which S&P
      assessed using its cash flow analysis and assumptions
      commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.2365%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      rated notes' outstanding balance.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment overcollateralization test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of a
      certain amount of excess interest proceeds, that are
      available before paying uncapped administrative expenses and
      fees; subordinated hedge termination payments; collateral
      manager incentive fees; and subordinated note payments, to
      principal proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets
      during the reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Neuberger Berman CLO XVI Ltd./Neuberger Berman CLO XVI LLC

Class                    Rating          Amount (mil. $)
X                        AAA (sf)                   4.00
A-1                      AAA (sf)                 275.50
A-2                      AAA (sf)                  60.00
B-1                      AA (sf)                   50.00
B-2                      AA (sf)                   18.75
C-1 (deferrable)         A (sf)                    41.50
C-2 (deferrable)         A (sf)                     1.00
D (deferrable)           BBB- (sf)                 33.75
E (deferrable)           BB- (sf)                  25.50
F (deferrable)           B (sf)                    12.50
Subordinated notes       NR                        49.50

NR-Not rated.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on 3 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to New Residential Advance Receivables Trust's
$1.913 billion receivables-backed notes series 2014-VF1, 2014-T1,
and 2014-T2.

The note issuance is a residential mortgage-backed securities
transaction backed by servicer advance receivables and deferred
servicing fees.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 4,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The likelihood that recoveries on the servicer advances,
      together with a reserve fund and overcollateralization, are
      sufficient under our 'AAA', 'AA', 'A', 'BBB', 'BB', and 'B'
      stresses as outlined in S&P's criteria to meet scheduled
      interest and ultimate principal payments due on the
      securities according to the obligations' terms; and

   -- An operational review of the servicer.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

New Residential Advance Receivables Trust
Series 2014-VF1, 2014-T1, and 2014-T2

Class  Rating    Type         Interest               Amount
                              rate                 (mil. $)
A-VF1  AAA (sf)  1-yr. VFN    1 mo. LIBOR + 1.35    779.000
A-T1   AAA (sf)  1-yr. term   1.370                 464.400
A-T2   AAA (sf)  3-yr. term   2.370                 459.500
B-VF1  AA (sf)   1-yr. VFN    1 mo. LIBOR + 1.75     63.100
B-T1   AA (sf)   3-yr. term   1.720                  16.200
B-T2   AA (sf)   5-yr. term   2.720                  18.400
C-VF1  A (sf)    1-yr. VFN    1 mo. LIBOR + 2.75     32.700
C-T1   A (sf)    3-yr. term   1.970                   7.500
C-T2   A (sf)    5-yr. term   3.020                   8.400
D-VF1  BBB (sf)  1-yr. VFN    1 mo. LIBOR + 4.00     25.200
D-T1   BBB (sf)  3-yr. term   2.470                   7.000
D-T2   BBB (sf)  5-yr. term   3.420                   8.400
E-TF1  BB (sf)   1-yr. term   3.820                   8.600
E-T1   BB (sf)   3-yr. term   3.820                   2.600
E-T2   BB (sf)   5-yr. term   5.170                   3.100
F-TF1  B (sf)    1-yr. term   5.070                   3.900
F-T1   B (sf)    3-yr. term   5.070                   2.300
F-T2   B (sf)    5-yr. term   6.420                   2.200
G-TF1  NR        1-yr. term   6.520                  29.000
G-T1   NR        3-yr. term   6.520                   8.600
G-T2   NR        5-yr. term   7.770                  11.600

VFN-Variable-funding note.
Term-Term note.
NR-Not rated.


NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2013-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Cl. F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on NewStar
Commercial Loan Funding 2013-1 LLC's $371.20 million floating-rate
notes following the transaction's effective date as of Feb. 12,
2014.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral, or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

An effective date rating affirmation reflects S&P's opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
S&P by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that S&P assigned on the transaction's
closing date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of
certain information that S&P used in its analysis and the results
of its review based on the information presented to S&P.

S&P believes the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of S&P's criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P said.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P added.

"On an ongoing basis after we issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we will periodically review whether, in our view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and take rating actions as we deem
necessary," S&P noted.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

NewStar Commercial Loan Funding 2013-1 LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                      (mil. $)
A-T                        AAA (sf)                     202.60
A-R                        AAA (sf)                      35.00
B                          AA (sf)                       38.00
C (deferrable)             A (sf)                        36.00
D (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      21.00
E (deferrable)             BBB- (sf)                      6.00
F (deferrable)             BB (sf)                       17.40
G (deferrable)             B (sf)                        15.20
Equity                     NR                            28.80

NR--Not rated.


NORTHWOODS CAPITAL: S&P Assigns Prelim BB Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Northwoods Capital XI Ltd./Northwoods Capital XI LLC's
$464.00 million fixed- and floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation
securitization backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of
broadly syndicated senior-secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 10,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary rated
      notes through the subordination of cash flows that are
      payable to the subordinated notes.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (excluding excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior-
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- S&P's projections regarding the timely interest and ultimate
      principal payments on the preliminary rated notes, which S&P
      assessed using its cash flow analysis and assumptions
      commensurate with the assigned preliminary ratings under
      various interest-rate scenarios, including LIBOR ranging
      from 0.2654%-12.8655%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment overcollateralization test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of up to
      50.00% of excess interest proceeds that are available before
      paying uncapped administrative expenses and fees, collateral
      manager subordinated and incentive management fees, and
      subordinated note payments to principal proceeds to purchase
      additional collateral assets during the reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Northwoods Capital XI Ltd./Northwoods Capital XI LLC

Class                  Rating                  Amount
                                             (mil. $)
A                      AAA (sf)                313.50
B-1                    AA (sf)                  33.00
B-2                    AA (sf)                  25.00
C (deferrable)         A (sf)                   40.00
D (deferrable)         BBB (sf)                 27.50
E (deferrable)         BB (sf)                  25.00
Subordinated notes     NR                       54.00

NR--Not rated.


OCP CLO 2014-5: S&P Assigns Preliminary BB Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to OCP CLO 2014-5 Ltd./OCP CLO 2014-5 Corp.'s $376.75
million floating-rate notes.

The note issuance is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of broadly
syndicated senior secured loans.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of March 7,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of:

   -- The credit enhancement provided to the preliminary rated
      notes through the subordination of cash flows that are
      payable to the preference shares.

   -- The transaction's credit enhancement, which is sufficient to
      withstand the defaults applicable for the supplemental tests
      (not counting excess spread), and cash flow structure, which
      can withstand the default rate projected by Standard &
      Poor's CDO Evaluator model, as assessed by Standard & Poor's
      using the assumptions and methods outlined in its corporate
      collateralized debt obligation (CDO) criteria.

   -- The transaction's legal structure, which is expected to be
      bankruptcy remote.

   -- The diversified collateral portfolio, which consists
      primarily of broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- The timely interest and ultimate principal payments on the
      preliminary rated notes, which S&P assessed using its cash
      flow analysis and assumptions commensurate with the assigned
      preliminary ratings under various interest-rate scenarios,
      including LIBOR ranging from 0.2356%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization and interest
      coverage tests, a failure of which will lead to the
      diversion of interest and principal proceeds to reduce the
      balance of the rated notes outstanding.

   -- The transaction's reinvestment interest diversion test, a
      failure of which will lead to the reclassification of up to
      50% of available excess interest proceeds into principal
      proceeds, which are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses and fees; subordinated hedge
      termination payments; collateral manager incentive fees; and
      preference shares payments to principal proceeds to purchase
      additional collateral obligations during the reinvestment
      period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

OCP CLO 2014-5 Ltd./OCP CLO 2014-5 Corp.

Class                     Rating                   Amount
                                                 (mil. $)
A-1                       AAA (sf)                242.000
A-2                       AA (sf)                  60.500
B (deferrable)            A (sf)                   25.250
C (deferrable)            BBB (sf)                 21.750
D (deferrable)            BB (sf)                  18.750
E (deferrable)            B (sf)                    8.500
Combination notes(i)      AA (sf)                 302.500
Preference shares         NR                       43.265

  (i) Combination notes consist of an aggregate amount of up to
      $302,500,000, with the components consisting of up to
      $242,000,000 of the class A-1 notes and $60,500,000 of the
      class A-2 notes.  On the closing date, the issuer expects to
      have a total of $245,750,000 of combination notes
      outstanding, consisting of $196,600,000 of class A-1 notes
      and $49,150,000 of class A-2 notes.  The individual
      components of the combination notes are included in the
      outstanding amount of the related components and will earn
      interest in the same manner as the related components. The
      component amounts outstanding can vary, subject to
      conditions as described in the indenture.

   NR - Not rated.


PACIFICA CDO V: S&P Raises Rating on Class D Notes to 'BB+'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B-1, B-2, C, and D notes from Pacifica CDO V Ltd., a cash flow
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Alcentra Ltd., and removed these ratings from CreditWatch, where
they were placed with positive implications on Jan. 22, 2014.  At
the same time, S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-
1 and A-2 notes from the same transaction.

Since S&P's June 2013 rating actions, the transaction has paid
down the class A-1 notes by $124 million to 27% of its initial
issuance amount.  The class A overcollateralization (O/C) ratio
increased to 170% as of the January 2014 trustee report, from 136%
as of the May 2013 report.  During the same time period, the
trustee reported that the balance of defaulted assets has
decreased to $2.6 million from $5.4 million.  S&P affirmed its
'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1 and A-2 notes and raised its
ratings on the class B-1, B-2, C, and D notes to reflect the
increase in credit support available to these notes as a result of
the paydowns.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
currently assigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit
enhancement available to support them, and S&P will take further
rating actions as it deems necessary.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Pacifica CDO V Ltd.

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)        25.87%   AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)        22.79%   AAA (sf)
B-1    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)        11.72%   AA+ (sf)
B-2    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)        11.72%   AA+ (sf)
C      BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos  A+ (sf)          5.48%   A+ (sf)
D      BB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BB+ (sf)         1.85%   BB+ (sf)

(i) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-even
     default rate above the scenario default rate at the cash flow
     implied rating for a given class of rated notes.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additional
scenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to the
current collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each
tranche's weighted average recovery rate

S&P also generated other scenarios by adjusting the intra- and
inter-industry correlations to assess the current portfolio's
sensitivity to different correlation assumptions assuming the
correlation scenarios outlined below.

Correlation

Scenario        Within industry (%)  Between industries (%)
Below base case                15.0                     5.0
Base case                      20.0                     7.5
Above base case                25.0                    10.0

                  Recovery   Correlation  Correlation
       Cash flow  decrease   increase     decrease
       implied    implied    implied      implied     Final
Class  rating     rating     rating       rating      rating
A-1    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B-1    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B-2    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)      AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)
D      BB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

To assess whether the current portfolio has sufficient diversity,
S&P biased defaults on the assets in the current collateral pool
with the highest spread and lowest base-case recoveries.

                    Spread        Recovery
       Cash flow    compression   compression
       implied      implied       implied       Final
Class  rating       rating        rating        rating
A-1    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
B-1    AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)       AA+ (sf)
B-2    AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)       AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)       BBB (sf)      A+ (sf)
D      BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      CC (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

Pacifica CDO V Ltd.

              Rating
Class     To          From
B-1       AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2       AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
C         A+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D         BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)/Watch Pos

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Pacifica CDO V Ltd.

Class     Rating
A-1       AAA (sf)
A-2       AAA (sf)


PALMER SQUARE 2013-2: S&P Affirms BB Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on Palmer
Square CLO 2013-2 Ltd./Palmer Square CLO 2013-2 LLC's $425.25
million fixed- and floating-rate notes following the transaction's
effective date as of Jan. 30, 2014.

Most U.S. cash flow collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) close
before purchasing the full amount of their targeted level of
portfolio collateral.  On the closing date, the collateral manager
typically covenants to purchase the remaining collateral within
the guidelines specified in the transaction documents to reach the
target level of portfolio collateral.  Typically, the CLO
transaction documents specify a date by which the targeted level
of portfolio collateral must be reached.  The "effective date" for
a CLO transaction is usually the earlier of the date on which the
transaction acquires the target level of portfolio collateral, or
the date defined in the transaction documents.  Most transaction
documents contain provisions directing the trustee to request the
rating agencies that have issued ratings upon closing to affirm
the ratings issued on the closing date after reviewing the
effective date portfolio (typically referred to as an "effective
date rating affirmation").

An effective date rating affirmation reflects S&P's opinion that
the portfolio collateral purchased by the issuer, as reported to
S&P by the trustee and collateral manager, in combination with the
transaction's structure, provides sufficient credit support to
maintain the ratings that S&P assigned on the transaction's
closing date.  The effective date reports provide a summary of
certain information that S&P used in its analysis and the results
of S&P's review based on the information presented to S&P.

S&P believes the transaction may see some benefit from allowing a
window of time after the closing date for the collateral manager
to acquire the remaining assets for a CLO transaction.  This
window of time is typically referred to as a "ramp-up period."
Because some CLO transactions may acquire most of their assets
from the new issue leveraged loan market, the ramp-up period may
give collateral managers the flexibility to acquire a more diverse
portfolio of assets.

For a CLO that has not purchased its full target level of
portfolio collateral by the closing date, S&P's ratings on the
closing date and prior to its effective date review are generally
based on the application of S&P's criteria to a combination of
purchased collateral, collateral committed to be purchased, and
the indicative portfolio of assets provided to S&P by the
collateral manager, and may also reflect its assumptions about the
transaction's investment guidelines.  This is because not all
assets in the portfolio have been purchased.

"When we receive a request to issue an effective date rating
affirmation, we perform quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the transaction in accordance with our criteria to assess whether
the initial ratings remain consistent with the credit enhancement
based on the effective date collateral portfolio.  Our analysis
relies on the use of CDO Evaluator to estimate a scenario default
rate at each rating level based on the effective date portfolio,
full cash flow modeling to determine the appropriate percentile
break-even default rate at each rating level, the application of
our supplemental tests, and the analytical judgment of a rating
committee," S&P noted.

"In our published effective date report, we discuss our analysis
of the information provided by the transaction's trustee and
collateral manager in support of their request for effective date
rating affirmation.  In most instances, we intend to publish an
effective date report each time we issue an effective date rating
affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO," S&P added.

On an ongoing basis after S&P issues an effective date rating
affirmation, it will periodically review whether, in its view, the
current ratings on the notes remain consistent with the credit
quality of the assets, the credit enhancement available to support
the notes, and other factors, and take rating actions as it deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Palmer Square CLO 2013-2 Ltd./Palmer Square CLO 2013-2 LLC

Class                      Rating                      Amount
                                                     (mil. $)
A-1a                       AAA (sf)                    266.10
A-1b                       AAA (sf)                     10.00
A-2                        AA (sf)                      66.60
B (deferrable)             A (sf)                       32.10
C (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                     23.00
D (deferrable)             BB (sf)                      18.30
E (deferrable)             B (sf)                        9.15


RALI SERIES 2004-QR1: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. A-2 Debt to Ba2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
tranches issued by RALI Series 2004-QR1. The resecuritization is
backed by Class A-1 issued by RALI Series 2004-QS14 Trust which is
backed by Alt-A RMBS loans issued in 2004.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: RALI Series 2004-QR1 Trust

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2011
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2011
Downgraded to B1 (sf)

Cl. A-5, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Jun 9, 2011
Downgraded to Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating upgrades are a result of a buildup in credit
enhancement and faster than expected pay down on the Class A-1 and
Class A-2 resecuritization tranches. The actions also reflect the
recent performance of the underlying pools backing RALI Series
2004-QS14 and Moody's updated loss expectations on the underlying
RMBS bonds.

The methodologies used in these ratings were "US RMBS Surveillance
Methodology" published in November 2013 and "Moody's Approach to
Rating Resecuritizations" published in February 2014.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of these transactions.


SALOMON BROTHERS 2000-C2: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on Cl. H Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed nine classes of Salomon Brothers
Mortgage Securities VII, Inc., (SBMSVII) commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates series 2000-C2.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool.  Fitch modeled losses of 38.3% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
8.9%, including $49.6 million (6.3% of the original pool balance)
in realized losses to date.  Ten loans remain in the transaction.
Given the concentration of the remaining collateral pool, Fitch
has stressed the remaining loans by applying an additional
reduction to the net operating income and applying a higher
stressed market cap rate to each loan to determine value.

As of the January 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 93% to $54.3 million from
$781.6 million at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, three
loans (9.8% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes F through P.  Fitch has designated
three loans (83.1%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes two
specially serviced assets (35.8%).

The largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced Diamond Point Plaza loan (26.1% of the pool), which was
originally secured by a 251,365 square foot retail property
located in Baltimore, MD.  The asset had been REO since February
2006 until it was sold for $5 million in December 2012.
Litigation against the guarantor over carve-out claims continues
in the pursuit of related borrower entities.  Realized losses to
the trust will be settled upon receipt of litigation proceeds.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced 400 Blair Road loan (9.7%), which is secured by a 181,000
square foot industrial building located in Carteret, NJ.  The loan
went into default in January 2010 and the borrower filed for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection on Sept. 23, 2011.  Currently the
loan is subject to a modification that was established through
bankruptcy court.

The largest remaining loan, 1615 Poydras Street, is secured by a
23-story, 501,741 square foot office building located in New
Orleans, LA.  The 2013 net operating income debt service coverage
ratio (NOI DSCR) was 1.33x.  The property was 80% occupied as of
year-end 2013. The loan was transferred to special servicing in
2010 and has been modified twice as a result of struggling
performance and failing to pay the loan off at its Anticipated
Repayment Date (ARD).  The loan was returned to the master
servicer in July 2013 and was on an interest-only payment schedule
through its January 2014 payment.

Rating Sensitivity

The Rating Outlook on class E was revised to Stable as
affirmations are expected due to the likelihood of full principal
recovery.  Upgrades are not warranted due to continued risk of
interest shortfalls, which are currently affecting classes F and
below, should additional loans transfer to the special servicer.
Fitch will not rate classes 'AAA' or 'AA' if there is a high
vulnerability of interest shortfalls (see 'Criteria for Rating
Caps and Limitations in Global Structured Finance Transactions',
dated June 12, 2013, for more details).  Classes F and G were
revised to stable due to continued paydown and increases in credit
enhancement.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Rating Outlooks
and REs as indicated:

-- $6.2 million class E at 'Asf', Outlook to Stable from Negative;
-- $13.7 million class F at 'BBBsf', Outlook to Stable from
   Negative;
-- $9.8 million class G at 'BBsf', Outlook to Stable from
   Negative;
-- $21.5 million class H at 'Csf', RE 20%.

Fitch affirms the following classes:

-- $3.2 million class J at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
-- $0 class N at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

The class A-1, A-2, B, C and D certificates have paid in full.
Fitch does not rate the class P certificates.  Fitch previously
withdrew the rating on the interest-only class X certificates.


SLM PRIVATE 2005-B: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class C Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on one class
of notes and affirmed its ratings on 13 classes of notes from
three SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trusts.  At the same time,
S&P removed the three class A-2 notes from CreditWatch negative,
one each from series 2002-A (the downgraded class of notes),
2005-B, and 2007-A.

The affirmations reflect S&P's view of the collateral's
performance, which it considered in its cumulative default
assumptions, and the level of credit enhancement available in each
trust.

Additionally, S&P's rating analysis and corresponding rating
actions on the class A-2 notes from all three series reflect its
criteria for assessing counterparty risk.  Because the
transaction-specific existing swap documentation does not comply
with S&P's counterparty criteria, the maximum rating that the
counterparty can support under the deal documentation, absent
sufficient mitigating factors, is its issuer credit rating (ICR)
plus one notch.

"We ran various cash flow scenarios to determine if these classes
could sustain rating level stresses on an unhedged basis at a
rating level exceeding the ICR plus one notch limitation outlined
above, given their current structure and credit enhancement
levels.  The cash flow runs indicated that the class A-2 notes
from series 2005-B and 2007-A are able to pass their current 'A+'
and 'AA-' level stresses, respectively, while the class A-2 notes
from series 2002-A were not able to pass the 'AA' rating level
stress.  Therefore, we affirmed our ratings on the class A-2 notes
from series 2005-B and 2007-A; while we lowered our rating on the
class A-2 notes from series 2002-A one notch; it is essentially
capped at the long-term ICR on Merrill Lynch Derivative Products
AG ('A+') plus one notch ('AA-'), which is the maximum rating
Merrill Lynch Derivative Products AG can support under the deal
documentation," S&P said.

                         POOL PERFORMANCE

For the quarterly period ending in November 2013, the performance
seasoning for these transactions' ranged from 27-45 quarters, with
collateral pool factors (the principal balance remaining in the
pool as a percent of the original pool balance) ranging between
approximately 29%-75.5%.  At the same time, the percentage of
loans in repayment was between 84%-96%.

Cumulative gross defaults for the transactions currently range
from 12.0%-18.0% (see tables 2 and 3).  Lastly, parity levels have
grown steadily over the past couple years, now ranging between
102.8%-108.7% in total parity, senior parity levels range between
117.4%-118.7%, and mezzanine parity levels range between 111.1%-
112.2%.

Table 1

Seasoning And Pool Factors

         Transaction           Pool
           seasoning         factor       Repayment(i)
Series     (quarters)           (%)                (%)
2002-A            45          29.19              96.28
2005-B            33          60.50              88.13
2007-A            27          75.53              84.15

(i) As a percentage of the current collateral balance; does not
    include accrued interest.

Table 2

Cumulative Gross Defaults

                    Cumulative    12-month cumulative
              gross default(i)     gross default (ii)
Series                     (%)                    (%)
2002-A                   12.14                   0.61
2005-B                   16.05                   1.80
2007-A                   17.97                   2.77

  (i) As a percentage of initial collateral balance.
(ii) As a percentage of initial collateral balance, incurred from
      November 2012-November 2013.

Table 3

Forbearance And Delinquency

                                       90-plus        Total
                    Forbearance(i)     delinq.(ii)   delinq. (ii)
Series                   (%)               (%)            (%)
2002-A                   0.44              2.70           6.57
2005-B                   1.64              3.73           7.73
2007-A                   1.80              4.45           9.06

  (i) As a percentage of current collateral balance.
(ii) As a percentage of loans in repayment.

Table 4

Parity Levels

                         Current        Current      12 months
             Senior    mezzanine          total    prior total
          parity(i)    parity(ii)   parity(iii)     parity(iv)
Series          (%)           (%)           (%)            (%)
2002-A       118.65        112.22        108.74         106.64
2005-B       118.13        111.73        102.86         101.65
2007-A       117.38        111.08        103.41         103.14

  (i) Total pool balance plus cash capitalization account plus
      reserve account over class A notes outstanding.

(ii) Total pool balance plus cash capitalization account plus
      reserve account over class A and B notes outstanding.

(iii) Total pool balance plus cash capitalization account plus
      reserve account over total notes outstanding.

(iv) Total pool balance plus cash capitalization account plus
      reserve account over total notes outstanding as of November
      2012.

           DEFAULT EXPECTATIONS AND NET LOSS PROJECTIONS

Based on S&P's view of these pools of private student loans'
current and projected performance, it revised its lifetime
cumulative default expectations for series 2005-B and 2007-A; its
current base-case cumulative default assumption for series 2002-A
remains unchanged.  S&P assumed future stressed recovery rates of
20% of the dollar amount of cumulative defaults; S&P therefore
expects remaining cumulative net losses to range from 5.0%-11.75%.

Table 5

Base-Case Cumulative Default Assumptions

          Projected                                  Projected
           lifetime     Cumulative                   remaining
   cumulative gross  gross default     Recovery     cumulative
         default(i)     to date(ii)  assumption  net loss(iii)
Series          (%)             (%)         (%)            (%)
2002-A    14.0-16.0           12.14          20       5.0-10.5
2005-B    23.0-25.0           16.05          20       9.0-12.0
2007-A    27.0-29.0           17.97          20      9.5-11.75

   (i) As a percentage of the initial collateral balance.
  (ii) As a percentage of the initial collateral balance, as of
       the December 2013 distribution date.
(iii) As a percentage of the current collateral balance, as of
       the December 2013 distribution date.

                             STRUCTURE

Each of the transactions have a five-year lockout period, during
which principal is paid sequentially to the class A, B, and C
notes.  After the five-year lockout (the step-down date), if the
cumulative realized loss trigger is not in effect and the
overcollateralization amount is at its target level (i.e., 15.0%
of senior debt, 10.125% of mezzanine debt, 3.0% of overall debt,
and 2.0% of the initial pool balance), the class B and C notes are
entitled to receive principal payments if there are funds
available in the principal distribution account after paying the
class A noteholders' principal distribution amount.

The cumulative realized loss triggers switch the principal payment
priority back to sequential if cumulative net losses exceed 15%
within five years, 18% within seven years, or 20% thereafter.

In addition, the transactions pay principal sequentially within
the subclasses of the class A notes, provided that if the class A
notes become undercollateralized (i.e., breach the class A note
parity trigger), the class A notes outstanding will be paid pro
rata (based on their outstanding balances) until their principal
balances have been reduced to zero or the class A notes become
collateralized again.

               BREAKEVEN CASH FLOW MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

S&P rans midstream breakeven cash flows for all the transactions
under various interest rate scenarios and rating stress
assumptions.  These cash flow runs provided breakeven percentages
that represent the maximum amount of remaining cumulative net
losses a transaction can absorb (as a percentage of the pool
balance as of the cash flow cutoff date) before failing to pay
full and timely interest and ultimate principal.  The following
are some of the major assumptions we modeled:

   -- Straight-line default curves that covered five-year periods;
   -- Recovery rates at 20%;

   -- Prepayment speeds starting at approximately 2% constant
      prepayment rate (CPR, an annualized prepayment speed stated
      as a percentage of the current loan balance) and ramping up
      1% per year to a maximum rate of 4%-5% CPR over three to
      four years.  S&P helds the applicable maximum rate constant
      for the deal's remaining life;

   -- Forbearance rates of 5% for 12 months;

   -- Deferment of 4%-15% for 24-36 months;

   -- Stressed interest rate vectors for the various indices,
      which tends to be a rolling up/down movement; and

   -- For those transactions with auction rate security exposure,
      auction failures for each transaction's life with an auction
      rate coupon applicable "maximum rate" definition in the
      respective transaction documents.

    BREAKEVEN CASH FLOW MODELING RESULTS AND S&P'S RATING ACTIONS

S&P's cash flow runs indicated that the available credit
enhancement in each transaction is sufficient to support the
respective classes at their current rating levels (with the
exception of series 2002-A's class A-2 notes).

The rating differential on the class A-2 notes from all three
transactions are reflective of their senior positions in the
respective capital structures, the deals' sequential-pay
structure, and S&P's expectations regarding the likelihood that
the affected classes' remaining balances would be repaid in full
before the class A notes became undercollateralized in S&P's
stress scenarios.  If the class A note parity trigger is in
effect, all class A notes outstanding will be paid pro rata (based
on their outstanding balance) until their principal balances have
been reduced to zero.

Standard & Poor's will continue to monitor the performance of the
student loan receivables backing these transactions relative to
our revised cumulative default expectations and the available
credit enhancement.

RATING LOWERED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2002-A
$726.86 million floating rate student loan-backed notes series
2002-A

                               Rating
Class      CUSIP       To              From
A-2        78443CAB0   AA- (sf)        AA(sf)/Watch Neg

RATINGS AFFIRMED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2005-B
$1.702 billion floating-rate student loan-backed notes series
2005-B

                               Rating
Class      CUSIP       To             From
A-2        78443CBZ6   A+ (sf)        A+(sf)/Watch Neg

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2007-A
$2.566 billion student loan-backed notes series 2007-A

                               Rating
Class      CUSIP       To              From
A-2        78443DAB8   AA- (sf)        AA-(sf)/Watch Neg

RATINGS AFFIRMED

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2002-A
$726.86 million floating-rate student loan-backed notes series
2002-A

Class      CUSIP       Rating
B          78443CAC8   A- (sf)
C          78443CAD6   BBB- (sf)


SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2005-B
$1.702 billion floating-rate student loan-backed notes series
2005-B
Class      CUSIP       Rating
A-3        78443CCA0   A (sf)
A-4        78443CCB8   A (sf)
B          78443CCC6   BBB (sf)
C          78443CCD4   BB (sf)


SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2007-A
$2.566 billion student loan-backed notes series 2007-A
Class      CUSIP       Rating
A-3        78443DAC6   A (sf)
A-4        78443DAD4   A (sf)
B          78443DAF9   BBB+ (sf)
C-1        78443DAH5   BBB- (sf)
C-2        78443DAJ1   BBB- (sf)


STRUCTURED ASSET 2004-S2: Moody's Hikes Rating on 2 Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
from Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-S2. The
collateral backing this deal primarily consists of closed end
second lien loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2004-S2

Cl. M4, Upgraded to B1 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2010 Downgraded
to B3 (sf)

Cl. M5, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of second lien
loans backed pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations
on these pools. The ratings upgraded are primarily due to the
build-up in credit enhancement due to sequential pay structure,
non-amortizing subordinate bonds, and availability of excess
spread. Performance has remained generally stable from our last
review.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of this transaction.


TAXABLE WORLD: Moody's Affirms 'Ba1' Revenue Bond Rating
--------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the rating of Taxable World
Headquarters Revenue Bonds, Series 1995 as follows:

Bonds, Affirmed Ba1; previously on Mar 28, 2013 Affirmed Ba1

Ratings Rationale

The rating is affirmed due to the support of the long term triple
net lease guaranteed by Owens Corning (senior unsecured rating
Ba1; stable outlook).

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The ratings of Credit Tenant Lease (CTL) deals are primarily based
on the senior unsecured debt rating (or the corporate family
rating) of the tenants leasing the real estate collateral
supporting the bonds. Other factors that are also considered are
Moody's dark value of the collateral (value based on the property
being vacant or dark), which is used to determine a recovery rate
upon a loan's default and the rating of the residual insurance
provider, if applicable. Factors that may cause an upgrade of the
ratings include an upgrade in the rating of the corporate tenant
or significant loan paydowns or amortization which results in a
higher dark loan to value. Factors that may cause a downgrade of
the ratings include a downgrade in the rating of the corporate
tenant or the residual insurance provider.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Commercial Real
Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

No model was used in this review.

Deal Performance

The Certificate is secured by a mortgage on a three-story, 400,000
square foot corporate campus in Toledo, Ohio which serves as Owens
Corning's world corporate headquarters. The long-term triple net
lease is guaranteed by Owens Corning and expires on March 31,
2015. The lease payments are sufficient to fully amortize the loan
during the lease term.

The aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 93% to $5.7
million from $85.3 million at securitization.

Regulatory Disclosures

For further specification of Moody's key rating assumptions and
sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and
Sensitivity to Assumptions of the disclosure form.

Moody's did not use any stress scenario simulations in its
analysis.

For ratings issued on a program, series or category/class of debt,
this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in
relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of
the same series or category/class of debt or pursuant to a program
for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing
ratings in accordance with Moody's rating practices. For ratings
issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain
regulatory disclosures in relation to the rating action on the
support provider and in relation to each particular rating action
for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support
provider's credit rating. For provisional ratings, this
announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation
to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a
definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final
issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure
and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the
definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating.

For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct
credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this rating action,
and whose ratings may change as a result of this rating action,
the associated regulatory disclosures will be those of the
guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the
following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary
Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated
entity.


TERWIN MORTGAGE 2005-3SL: Moody's Hikes M-1 Notes' Rating to Caa1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating of Class M-1
from Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL. The collateral backing this
deal primarily consists of closed end second lien loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 20, 2010
Confirmed at Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The action is a result of the recent performance of the second
lien loans backed pools and reflect Moody's updated loss
expectations on these pools. The rating upgraded is primarily due
to the build-up in credit enhancement due to sequential pay
structure, non-amortizing subordinate bond, and availability of
excess spread. Performance has remained generally stable from our
last review.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level of
macroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment
rate. The unemployment rate fell to 6.6% in January 2014 from 7.9%
in January 2013 . Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range
of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year. Deviations from this central
scenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014. Lower
increases than Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative
rating actions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent
on servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing
transfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact the
performance of this transaction.


WACHOVIA BANK 2003-C4: Fitch Hikes Rating on Cl. O Certs to 'BBsf'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings upgrades two classes of Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust, Series 2003-C4 (WB 2003-C4) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The upgrades reflect continued loan paydown and increased credit
enhancement as well as stable collateral performance since the
last rating action.  Fitch modeled losses of 18.46% of the
remaining pool; expected losses as a percentage of the original
pool balance are at 1.28%, including losses already incurred to
date (0.86%).  The remaining pool composition consists of 13
loans: nine fully amortizing loans, two 15-year term loans, and
two delinquent and specially serviced 10-year term loans.  Fitch
has designated eight loans (63.5%) as Fitch Loans of Concern of
which two (23.3%) are the specially serviced loans.

Ratings Sensitivity

The Stable Rating Outlooks on classes N and O are due to high
credit enhancement and continued expected paydown of the pool.
Further upgrades are not warranted due to the significant
concentration of the remaining pool as well as the high percentage
of Fitch Loans of Concern.

As of the February 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by approximately 97.75% to
$20.1 million from $891.8 billion at issuance.  Interest
shortfalls total $0.34 million and affect class P.  There is one
defeased loan (15.7%) in the pool.

The largest contributor to modeled losses is the Huntington Woods
MHP loan (8.62% of the pool), which is secured by a 123-pad
manufacturing housing community.  The loan transferred to the
special servicer in April 2013 for maturity default.  The
property's occupancy has been trending down over the past few
years and is currently at 83% versus 91% at issuance.  A receiver
was appointed in August 2013 and commenced foreclosure
proceedings.

The second-largest contributor is the real estate owned (REO),
Highland Park Apartments (14.67% of the pool), a 116-unit
multifamily property located in Macon, GA. The property is located
along Interstate 75, 75 miles southeast of  Atlanta, GA and is in
close proximity to Robbins Air Force base.  Occupancy was 72% in
2013.

The third-largest contributor to modeled losses, Summit Place
Townhomes (6.35% of the pool), is a 48-unit multifamily community
located in Biloxi, MS.  The property was recently renamed
Providence Pointe II and shares office, laundry, and maintenance
facilities with its adjacent property.  The property suffers from
low economic growth prospects and two competing properties within
a mile radius.  The property manager continues to address deferred
maintenance issues on-site while aggressively marketing the
community in an effort to raise occupancy from a low of 73%.

Fitch upgrades the following classes as indicated:

-- $1.1 million class N to 'Asf' from 'B-sf', Outlook to Stable
   from Negative;
-- $4.5 million class O to 'BBsf' from 'CCCsf', assigns Stable
   Outlook.

Class A-1, A-1A, A-2, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M and the
interest-only class X-P have repaid in full. Fitch does not rate
$17 million class P. Class X-C was previously withdrawn.


WACHOVIA BANK 2006-C23: Moody's Affirms 'C' Ratings on 4 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings on nineteen classes
in Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-C23 as follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-5, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-J, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
Ba3 (sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed Ca (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed Ca
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. M, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. N, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. O, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X-C, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Mar 14, 2013 Affirmed
Ba3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the eight P&I investment grade rated classes were
affirmed because the transaction's key metrics, including Moody's
loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, Moody's stressed debt service coverage
ratio (DSCR) and the transaction's Herfindahl Index (Herf), are
within acceptable ranges. The ratings on the ten below investment
grade P&I classes were affirmed because the ratings are consistent
with Moody's expected loss. The rating on the IO class was
affirmed based on the credit performance (or the weighted average
rating factor or WARF) of their referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 7.1% of the
current balance, compared to 7.5% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 8.0% of the
original pooled balance, compared to 7.6% at the last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range can
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously expected.

Factors that could lead to an upgrade of the ratings include a
significant amount of loan paydowns or amortization, an increase
in the pool's share of defeasance or an improvement in pool
performance.

Factors that could lead to a downgrade of the ratings include a
decline in the performance of the pool, loan concentration, an
increase in realized and expected losses from specially serviced
and troubled loans or interest shortfalls.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS Transactions" published in
April 2005.

Description of Models Used

Moody's review used the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v 2.64,
which it uses for both conduit and fusion transactions. Conduit
model results at the Aa2 (sf) level are driven by property type,
Moody's actual and stressed DSCR, and Moody's property quality
grade (which reflects the capitalization rate Moody's uses to
estimate Moody's value). Conduit model results at the B2 (sf)
level are based on a paydown analysis using the individual loan-
level Moody's LTV ratio. Moody's may consider other concentrations
and correlations in its analysis. Based on the model pooled credit
enhancement levels of Aa2 (sf) and B2 (sf), the required credit
enhancement on the remaining conduit classes are either
interpolated between these two data points or determined based on
a multiple or ratio of either of these two data points. For fusion
deals, Moody's merges the credit enhancement for loans with
investment-grade credit assessments with the conduit model credit
enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's incorporates
negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the credit
assessment level) for loans with similar credit assessments in the
same transaction.

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 46 compared to 50 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the February 18, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 21% to $3.35
billion from $4.23 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 266 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 9% of the pool, with the top ten loans constituting 35%
of the pool. The pool contains ten loans, representing 3% of the
pool, that have defeased and are secured by U.S. Government
securities. The pool contains one loan with an investment-grade
credit assessment that represents less than 1% of the pool.

Thirty-seven loans, constituting 13% of the pool, are on the
master servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that
meet certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of
the CRE Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part
of Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Sixteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, resulting in a
realized loss of $101.9 million (24% loss severity). Currently, 20
loans, representing 9% of the pool, are in special servicing. The
largest specially serviced loan is the 3500 Maple Loan ($44.3
million -- 1.3% of the pool), which is secured by a 376,862 square
foot Class A office property. The 18-story office building is
located in Dallas, Texas and was built in 1985 and renovated in
2003. Property performance suffered as occupancy declined. The
loan transferred to special servicing in November 2011 due to
imminent monetary default. As of December 2013, the property was
63% leased. The TIC borrowing structure declared Chapter 11
bankruptcy and plan confirmation hearings are ongoing.

The second largest specially serviced loan is the Parkway
Corporate Plaza loan ($41.4 million -- 1.2% of the pool) which is
secured by four, two-story office buildings located in Roseville,
California outside of Sacramento. The loan transferred to special
servicing in November 2013. It is currently in foreclosure
proceedings due to elements of the TIC structure filing Chapter 11
bankruptcy which was dismissed on February 19, 2014. Property
performance has declined due to the competitive leasing market.

The remaining specially serviced loans are secured by a mix of
property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $143.1 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (50% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for 20 poorly
performing loans, representing 9% of the pool and has estimated an
aggregate $43.3 million loss (15% expected loss based on a 50%
default probability) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2011 and 2012 operating results for 99%
of the pool, respectively and partial year 2013 operating results
for 80%. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93%, compared to
99% at Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes
loans with credit assessments, defeased and CTL loans, and
specially serviced and troubled loans. Moody's net cash flow (NCF)
reflects a weighted average haircut of 11.3% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.0%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.37X and 1.14X,
respectively, compared to 1.35X and 1.05X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The loan with an investment-grade credit assessment is the
Cavalier Country Club Apartment Loan ($24.7 million -- 0.7% of the
pool), which is secured by a 744-unit, 32-building apartment
complex located in Newark, Delaware. Moody's current credit
assessment and stressed DSCR are Baa3 and 1.38X compared to Baa3
and 1.30X at last review.

The top three conduit loans represent 19% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the Outlet Pool Loan ($287.1 million -- 8.6% of
the pool), which is secured by ten outlet centers located across
eight states for which Simon Property Group is the sponsor. The
total gross leasable area (GLA) is 3.5 million SF. The loan
represents a 50% interest in a $574.2 first mortgage loan that is
also securitized within WBCMT 2006-C25. As of September 2013, the
portfolio was 93% leased compared to 92% at last review.
Performance for the portfolio has improved due to higher base
rents, due in part to the substitution of the stronger performing
Tinton Falls, New Jersey property into the portfolio for the
Jeffersonville, Ohio property. This loan has amortized 9% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 62% and 1.61X,
respectively, compared to 68% and 1.48X at last review.

The second largest loan is the 620 Avenue of the Americas Loan
($205.0 million -- 6.1% of the pool), which is secured by a seven-
story, 670,000 SF mixed-use building located in the
Flatiron/Chelsea sub-market of Manhattan. The loan is encumbered
with a $30.0 million B-note and $30.0 million of mezzanine debt.
As of October 2013, the property was 99% compared to 92% at last
review. This loan is interest-only throughout the loan term.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 117% and 0.79X, respectively
compared to 121% and 0.76X at last review.

The third largest loan is the Hyatt Center Loan ($155.3 million --
4.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 49-story, 1.47 million SF
Class A office building located in the West Loop sub-market of
Chicago, Illinois. The loan represents a 50% interest in a $310.6
million first mortgage loan that is also securitized in WBCMT
2005-C22. The property was purchased by the Irvine Company (from
the Pritzer Group) in December 2010 for $625 million. The largest
tenants are Mayer Brown LLP (25% of the NRA; lease expires in June
2020); the Hyatt Corporation (22% of the NRA; lease expires in
January 2020); and Goldman Sachs (10% of the NRA; lease expires in
March 2020). As of October 2013 the property was 91% leased
compared to 95% at last review. This loan has amortized 4% since
securitization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 85% and 1.08X,
respectively, compared to 104% and 0.88X at last review.


WFRBS 2014-C19: Moody's Assigns '(P)Ba3' Rating on Cl. X-B Secs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to
twelve classes of CMBS securities, issued by WFRBS Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2014-C19

Cl. A-1, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-5, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S**, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-A*, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B*, Assigned (P) Ba3 (sf)

Cl. B**, Assigned (P)Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C**, Assigned (P)A3 (sf)

Cl. PEX**, Assigned (P)A1 (sf)

  * Interest Only Class
** Reflects Exchangeable Certificates

Ratings Rationale

The Certificates are collateralized by 99 fixed rate loans secured
by 133 properties. The ratings are based on the collateral and the
structure of the transaction.

Moody's CMBS ratings methodology combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. Under structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors:
1) Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is
largely driven by each loan's DSCR, and 2) Moody's assessment of
the severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by
each loan's LTV ratio.

The Moody's Actual DSCR of 1.58X is greater than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 1.31X. The Moody's Stressed
DSCR of 1.11X is greater than the 2007 conduit/fusion transaction
average of 0.92X.

Moody's Trust LTV ratio of 105.2% is lower than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 110.6%. Moody's Total LTV
ratio (inclusive of subordinated, mezzanine and debt-like
preferred equity financing) of 105.8% is also considered when
analyzing various stress scenarios for the rated debt.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 1 to 5 (best to
worst) and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of
debt payment. The factors considered include property age, quality
of construction, location, market, and tenancy. The pool's
weighted average property quality grade is 2.5, which is weaker
than the indices calculated in most multi-borrower transactions
since 2009. The weighted average grade is indicative of the
average market composition of the pool and the stability of the
cash flows underlying the assets.

Moody's also considers both loan level diversity and property
level diversity when selecting a ratings approach. With respect to
loan level diversity, the pool's loan level (includes cross
collateralized and cross defaulted loans) Herfindahl Index is
39.7. The transaction's loan level diversity is greater than
Herfindahl score calculated in most multi-borrower transactions
issued since 2010. With respect to property level diversity, the
pool's property level Herfindahl Index is 55.2. The transaction's
property diversity profile is greater than the indices calculated
in most multi-borrower transactions issued since 2010.

This deal has a super-senior Aaa classes with 30% credit
enhancement. Although the additional enhancement offered to the
senior most certificate holders provides additional protection
against pool loss, the super-senior structure is credit negative
for the certificate that supports the super-senior class. If the
support certificate were to take a loss, the loss would have the
potential to be quite large on a percentage basis. Thin tranches
need more subordination to reduce the probability of default in
recognition that their loss-given default is higher. This
adjustment helps keep expected loss in balance and consistent
across deals. The transaction was structured with additional
subordination at class A-S to mitigate the potential increased
severity to class A-S.

In terms of waterfall structure, the transaction contains a group
of exchangeable certificates. Classes A-S ((P) Aaa (sf)), B ((P)
Aa3 (sf)) and C ((P) A3 (sf)) may be exchanged for Class PEX ((P)
A1 (sf)) certificates and Class PEX may be exchanged for the
Classes A-S, B and C. The PEX certificates will be entitled to
receive the sum of interest and principal distributable on the
Classes A-S, B and C certificates that are exchanged for such PEX
certificates. The initial certificate balance of the Class PEX
certificates is equal to the aggregate of the initial certificate
balances of the Class A-S, B and C and represent the maximum
certificate balance of the PEX certificates that may be issued in
an exchange.

The methodologies used in this rating were "Moody's Approach to
Rating U.S. CMBS Conduit Transactions" published in September
2000, and "Moody's Approach to Rating Fusion U.S. CMBS
Transactions" published in April 2005.

Moody's analysis employs the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v2.64
which derives credit enhancement levels based on an aggregation of
adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's loan level DSCR
and LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining proceeds include
loan structure, property type, sponsorship, and diversity. Moody's
analysis also uses the CMBS IO calculator ver1.1, which references
the following inputs to calculate the proposed IO rating based on
the published methodology: original and current bond ratings and
credit estimates; original and current bond balances grossed up
for losses for all bonds the IO(s) reference(s) within the
transaction; and IO type corresponding to an IO type as defined in
the published methodology.

The V Score for this transaction is assessed as Low/Medium, the
same as the V score assigned to the U.S. Conduit and CMBS sector.
This reflects typical volatility with respect to the critical
assumptions used in the rating process as well as an average
disclosure of securitization collateral and ongoing performance.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the
collateral used in determining the initial rating were decreased
by 5%, 14%, and 23%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated Aaa Super Senior class would be Aaa, Aaa, and Aa1,
respectively; for the most junior Aaa rated class A-S would be
Aa1, Aa2, and Aa3, respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not
intended to measure how the rating of the security might migrate
over time; rather they are designed to provide a quantitative
calculation of how the initial rating might change if key input
parameters used in the initial rating process differed. The
analysis assumes that the deal has not aged. Parameter
Sensitivities only reflect the ratings impact of each scenario
from a quantitative/model-indicated standpoint. Qualitative
factors are also taken into consideration in the ratings process,
so the actual ratings that would be assigned in each case could
vary from the information presented in the Parameter Sensitivity
analysis.

These ratings: (a) are based solely on information in the public
domain and/or information communicated to Moody's by the issuer at
the date it was prepared and such information has not been
independently verified by Moody's; (b) must be construed solely as
a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact or an offer,
invitation, inducement or recommendation to purchase, sell or hold
any securities or otherwise act in relation to the issuer or any
other entity or in connection with any other matter. Moody's does
not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the
correctness of any information, rating or communication relating
to the issuer. Moody's shall not be liable in contract, tort,
statutory duty or otherwise to the issuer or any other third party
for any loss, injury or cost caused to the issuer or any other
third party, in whole or in part, including by any negligence (but
excluding fraud, dishonesty and/or willful misconduct or any other
type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of,
or any contingency beyond the control of Moody's, or any of its
employees or agents, including any losses arising from or in
connection with the procurement, compilation, analysis,
interpretation, communication, dissemination, or delivery of any
information or rating relating to the issuer.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance expectations for a given variable indicate Moody's
forward-looking view of the likely range of performance over the
medium term. Performance that falls outside the given range may
indicate that the collateral's credit quality is stronger or
weaker than Moody's had previously anticipated. Factors that may
cause an upgrade of the ratings include significant loan paydowns
or amortization, an increase in the pool's share of defeasance or
overall improved pool performance. Factors that may cause a
downgrade of the ratings include a decline in the overall
performance of the pool, loan concentration, increased expected
losses from specially serviced and troubled loans or interest
shortfalls.


* Fitch Cuts or Withdraws Distressed Classes in 34 U.S. CMBS Deals
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has taken various actions on already distressed
bonds in 34 U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)
transactions.  Fitch downgraded 60 bonds in the transactions to
'D', as the bonds have incurred a principal write-down.  The bonds
were all previously rated 'C', which indicates an imminent default
was expected.

Fitch has also withdrawn the ratings on two bonds in a transaction
where the remaining classes have been reduced to zero from paydown
and/or realized losses.  One bond was downgraded from 'C' to 'D'
simultaneously with the withdrawal, while the other withdrawn bond
was already rated 'D'.

Key Rating Drivers

The downgrades are limited to just the bonds with write-downs. Any
remaining bonds in these transactions have not been analyzed as
part of this review.


* Moody's Takes Action on $338MM of RMBS by Various Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of two tranches
from one transaction and downgraded the ratings of four tranches
from two transactions backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: WaMu Asset-Backed Certificates, WaMu Series 2007-HE3 Trust

Cl. I-A, Downgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. II-A2, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Confirmed at Caa2 (sf)

Cl. II-A5, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Aug 13, 2010
Confirmed at Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, WMABS Series
2006-HE1 Trust

Cl. I-A, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Aug 21, 2012
Confirmed at Caa3 (sf)

Cl. II-A-3, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa1 (sf)

Issuer: Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates, WMABS Series
2006-HE3 Trust

Cl. II-A-2, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jul 16, 2010
Downgraded to Caa2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pools. The upgrades are a result of improving performance of
the related pools and/or faster pay-down of the bonds due to high
prepayments/faster liquidations. The downgrades are a result of
structural features resulting in higher expected losses for the
bonds than previously anticipated.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBS
Surveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The primary source of assumption uncertainty is the uncertainty in
our central macroeconomic forecast and performance volatility due
to servicer-related issues. The unemployment rate fell from 7.7%
in February 2013 to 6.7% in February 2014. Moody's forecasts an
unemployment central range of 6.5% to 7.5% for the 2014 year.
Moody's expects house prices to continue to rise in 2014.
Performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependent on
servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicing transfers
or other policy or regulatory change can impact the performance of
these transactions.


                             *********

Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative prices
for bond issues that reportedly trade well below par.  Prices are
obtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources during
the prior week we think are reliable.  Those sources may not,
however, be complete or accurate.  The Monday Bond Pricing table
is compiled on the Friday prior to publication.  Prices reported
are not intended to reflect actual trades.  Prices for actual
trades are probably different.  Our objective is to share
information, not make markets in publicly traded securities.
Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy or
sell any security of any kind.  It is likely that some entity
affiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers'
public debt and equity securities about which we report.

Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies with
insolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 per
share in public markets.  At first glance, this list may look like
the definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.
Don't be fooled.  Assets, for example, reported at historical cost
net of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm's
assets.  A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet for
liabilities that may never materialize.  The prices at which
equity securities trade in public market are determined by more
than a balance sheet solvency test.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the TCR.  Submissions about insolvency-
related conferences are encouraged.  Send announcements to
conferences@bankrupt.com by e-mail.

On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filed
Chapter 11 cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets and
liabilities delivered to the nation's bankruptcy courts.  The
list includes links to freely downloadable of these small-dollar
petitions in Acrobat PDF documents.

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book of
interest to troubled company professionals.  All titles are
available at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com.  Go to
http://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today.

Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday edition
of the TCR.

The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the week
then-ending.

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Troubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published
by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Jhonas Dampog, Marites Claro, Joy Agravante, Rousel Elaine
Tumanda, Valerie Udtuhan, Howard C. Tolentino, Carmel Paderog,
Meriam Fernandez, Joel Anthony G. Lopez, Cecil R. Villacampa,
Sheryl Joy P. Olano, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Carlo Fernandez,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014.  All rights reserved.  ISSN: 1520-9474.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.  Information contained
herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is
not guaranteed.

The TCR subscription rate is $975 for 6 months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.


                  *** End of Transmission ***