TCR_Public/140831.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, August 31, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 242

                            Headlines

AIRLIE CLO 2006-II: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. D Notes
ALESCO PREFERRED XVI: Moody's Ups Rating on $20MM B Notes to Caa1
AMERICREDIT 2014-3: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)B2'
AMERICREDIT 2014-3: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
ANTHRACITE 2005-HY2: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to CC

APOLLO CREDIT I: S&P Withdraws BB Rating on Two Series
ARBOR REALTY 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. G Notes
ARBOR REALTY 2004-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. C Notes
ASHFORD CDO II: Moody's Ups Rating on $16MM Cl. B-2L Notes to Ca
ARROWPOINT CLO 2014-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on F Notes

ATRIUM VII: S&P Assigns 'BB+' Rating on Class E-R Notes
ATRIUM VII: Moody's Assigns Ba1 Rating on $8.5MM Cl. E-R Notes
BAKER STREET 2005-1: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
BAKER STREET II: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
BHMS 2014-ATLS: S&P Assigns 'B-' Rating on 2 Note Classes

BLACK DIAMOND CLO 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
BNPP IP CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Moody's Rates A-2 2006 & 2007 Bonds 'B1'
CATAMARAN CLO 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on D Notes
CEDARWOODS CRE: S&P Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to CC

CEDARWOODS CRE II: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'CCC-'
CFIP CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
CIFC FUNDING 2012-I: S&P Withdraws B Rating on Class B3L Notes
CIT CLO I: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class E Notes
COMM 2005-FL11: S&P Withdraws 'D' Rating on Class L Notes

COMM 2012-CCRE4: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Certificate
COMM 2013-300P: Fitch Affirms 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E Notes
COMM 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns B Rating on 2 Note Classes
COMPASS RE: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on 2 Note Classes
COPPER RIVER: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'

CREDIT SUISSE 2005-C5: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches
DEL MAR CLO I: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class E Notes
DUANE STREET IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB+
FAIRWAY LOAN: S&P Raises Rating on Class B-2L Notes to 'B-'
GALAXY XVIII: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on 2 Note Classes

GOLDMAN SACHS 2010-C2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
GOLDMAN SACHS 2011-GC5: Fitch Affirms 'B' Rating on Class F Notes
GRAMERCY REAL 2007-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 3 Classes
GS MORTGAGE 2014-GSFL: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on 3 Note Classes
JFIN REVOLVER 2014: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
JP MORGAN 2014-C22: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E Notes

KATONAH IX: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class B-2L Notes
KINDER MORGAN 2002-6: S&P Puts 'BB' Rating on CreditWatch Positive
KVK CLO 2014-3: S&P Assigns Preliminary B Rating on Class F Notes
LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2005-C2: Fitch Affirms D Ratings on 3 Notes
LCM VI: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class E Notes

LCM IX: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'
LCM XVII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes
LEHMAN BROTHERS 2007-LLF: S&P Cuts Rating on NOP-3 Certs to D
MADISON PARK VII: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'
MERRILL LYNCH 2006-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class L Notes to 'D'

MERRILL LYNCH 2033-D: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Classes to Caa1
MIRAMAX LLC 2011-1: S&P Withdraws 'BB' Rating on Class B Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2000-F1: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on 3 Notes
MORGAN STANLEY 2014-1: Fitch Assigns BB Rating on Class B-4 Certs
NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2006-1: Fitch Raises Rating on E Notes From BB

NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2007-1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on E Notes
PEACHTREE FRANCHISE 1999-A: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 3 Notes
PREFERREDPLUS ELP-1: S&P Puts 'BB' Rating on 2 Certs on Watch Pos.
PREFERRED TERM XXIII: Moody's Ups Rating on 3 Note Classes to B2
SILVER BAY 2014-1: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on $17.1MM Certs

SLM PRIVATE 2003-B: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Class C Notes
SLM PRIVATE 2003-C: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Class C Notes
SULLIVAN CLO I: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'B+'
SYMPHONY CLO III: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
TELOS CLO 2007-2: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $16MM Cl. E Notes

TRALEE CDO I: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class D Notes
TRAPEZA CDO II: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
US CAPITAL FUNDING: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 2 Notes to B3
WACHOVIA BANK 2003-C7: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Certs to D
WACHOVIA CRE 2006-1: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to B-

WELLS FARGO 2010-C1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Notes
WELLS FARGO 2012-LC5: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class E Notes
WINTER GARDEN: S&P Lowers Rating on 1994 Revenue Bonds to 'CC'

* S&P Lowers Rating on 17 Classes from 99 U.S. RMBS Transactions
* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 30 Classes From 18 CDO Transactions


                             *********


AIRLIE CLO 2006-II: Moody's Affirms B1 Rating on Cl. D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Airlie CLO 2006-II Ltd.:

$24,750,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
December 20, 2020, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on November 4,
2013 Upgraded to Aa2 (sf)

$25,000,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due December 20, 2020, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on November
4, 2013 Upgraded to A2 (sf)

$20,250,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes
Due December 20, 2020, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on
November 4, 2013 Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

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

$320,500,000 Class A-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
December 20, 2020 (current outstanding balance of
$210,483,072.19), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on November 4,
2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$19,000,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
December 20, 2020, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on November 4,
2013 Affirmed B1 (sf)

Airlie CLO 2006-II Ltd., issued in December 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in January 2014.

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 October 2013. The Class A-1 notes
have been paid down by approximately 32% or $97 million since
October 2013. Based on the trustee's July 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A, Class B, Class C
and Class D notes are reported at 125.83%, 115.41%, 108.16% and
102.14%, respectively, versus October 2013 levels of 123.20%,
114.57%, 108.43% and 103.23%, respectively. Moody's notes that the
July 2014 Trustee reported OC ratios do not take into account
$41.7 million that was paid to the A-1 notes holders on the July
21, 2014 payment date. Notwithstanding, the affirmation of the
junior-most note's rating is a result of slight par deterioration
since October 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/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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings 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% (2134)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +2

Class C: +3

Class D: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3202)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: -1

Class B: -2

Class C: -1

Class D: -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 $304.3 million, defaulted
par of $5 million, a weighted average default probability of
17.13% (implying a WARF of 2668), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 48.34%, a diversity score of 42 and a weighted
average spread of 3.27%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs". In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. In each case, historical and
market performance and the collateral manager's latitude for
trading the collateral are also factors.


ALESCO PREFERRED XVI: Moody's Ups Rating on $20MM B Notes to Caa1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by ALESCO Preferred Funding XVI, Ltd.:

$20,000,000 Class B Deferrable Second Priority Secured
Fixed/Floating Rate Notes due March 23, 2038 (current balance of
$20,459,518.48, including deferred interest), Upgraded to Caa1
(sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa2 (sf) Placed Under Review
for Possible Upgrade

Alesco Preferred Funding XVI, Ltd., issued in June 2007, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank and
insurance trust preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDO methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating
TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. It also reflects the partial
pay down of the Class B notes' deferred interest balance, an
increase in the transaction's overcollateralization ratios, and an
improvement in the credit quality of the underlying portfolio
since the rating action in October 2013.

The transaction has benefited from some of the updates to Moody's
TruPS CDO methodology, which include (1) removing the 25% macro
default probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2)
expanding the default timing profiles from one to six probability-
weighted scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for
bank and insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated
by Moody's CDOROM for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

The Class B notes' deferred interest has been paid down by
approximately $4.1 million since October 2013, using interest
proceeds. In addition, the Class A notes have paid down by
approximately 1.4% (or $4.3 million) using principal proceeds from
the redemption of underlying assets. As a result, the trustee
reported overcollateralization ratios have increased since the
last rating action. Based on the trustee's June 2014 report, the
Class A, Class B, and Class C overcollateralization ratios were
118.55% (limit 115.76%), 110.57% (limit 113.50%), and 85.71%
(limit 102.07%), versus 116.37%, 107.14%, and 83.72% in September
2013. The Class A notes will continue to benefit from the use of
proceeds from any redemptions of assets in the collateral pool.

The deal has also benefited from improvement in the credit quality
of the underlying portfolio. According to Moody's calculations,
the weighted average rating factor (WARF) improved to 665. The
total par amount that Moody's treated as having defaulted or
deferring declined to $57.0 million from $62.0 million in October
2013. Since the last rating action, one previously deferring bank
with a par of $5.0 million resumed making interest payments on its
TruPS and one asset with a par of $3.0 million was redeemed.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its rating on the issuer's Class B
notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed
the rating on review for possible upgrade as a result of the
aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par of $344.0
million, defaulted and deferring par of $57.0 million, a weighted
average default probability of 8.47% (implying a WARF of 847), and
a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10.0%. In
addition to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models,
qualitative factors are part of rating committee considerations.
Moody's considers the structural protections in the transaction,
the risk of an event of default, recent deal performance under
current market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector. Moody's maintains its stable outlook on the US insurance
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics,
to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of
most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014
financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance team,
based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance firms'
annual statutory financial reports.

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
ratings 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 503)

Class A: +2

Class B: +3

Class C: +0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 1370)

Class A: -2

Class B: -3

Class C: 0


AMERICREDIT 2014-3: Moody's Rates Class E Notes '(P)B2'
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned provisional ratings to the
notes to be issued by AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust
2014-3 (AMCAR 2014-3). This is the third public subprime
transaction of the year for AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.
(AmeriCredit).

The complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3

Class A-1 Notes, Assigned (P)P-1 (sf)

Class A-2-A Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class A-2-B Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class A-3 Notes, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

Class B Notes, Assigned (P)Aa1 (sf)

Class C Notes, Assigned (P)Aa3 (sf)

Class D Notes, Assigned (P)Baa2 (sf)

Class E Notes, Assigned (P)Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's said the ratings are based on the quality of the
underlying auto loans and their expected performance, the strength
of the structure, the availability of excess spread over the life
of the transaction, and the experience and expertise of
AmeriCredit as servicer.

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Auto Loan-Backed ABS" published in May 2013.

Moody's median cumulative net loss expectation for the AMCAR 2014-
3 pool is 8.50% and total credit enhancement required to achieve
Aaa rating is 36.00%. The loss expectation was based on an
analysis of AmeriCredit's portfolio vintage performance as well as
performance of past securitizations, and current expectations for
future economic conditions.

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

UP

Levels of credit protection that are higher than necessary to
protect investors against current expectations of loss could drive
the ratings up. Losses could decline from Moody's original
expectations as a result of a lower number of obligor defaults or
appreciation in the value of the vehicles securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance also depends greatly
on the US job market and the market for used vehicles. Other
reasons for better-than-expected performance include changes to
servicing practices that enhance collections or refinancing
opportunities that result in prepayments.

DOWN

Levels of credit protection that are insufficient to protect
investors against current expectations of loss could drive the
ratings down. Losses could rise above Moody's original
expectations as a result of a higher number of obligor defaults or
deterioration in the value of the vehicles securing an obligor's
promise of payment. Transaction performance depends greatly on the
U.S. job market and the market for used vehicles. Other reasons
for worse-than-expected performance include poor servicing, error
on the part of transaction parties, inadequate transaction
governance and fraud.


AMERICREDIT 2014-3: S&P Gives Prelim. BB Rating on E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3's $1.0
billion automobile receivables-backed notes series 2014-3.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 18,
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 41.3%, 35.9%, 28.8%,
      21.9%, and 18.1% 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, 3.00x, 2.55x, 1.75x, and 1.50x our 10.50%-11.00%
      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 S&P's 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 2014-3

Class     Rating          Type           Interest       Amount
                                          rate(i)      (mil. $)
A-1       A-1+ (sf)       Senior         Fixed          141.00
A-2       AAA (sf)        Senior         Fixed/         370.87
                                         floating(ii)
A-3       AAA (sf)        Senior         Fixed          198.42
B         AA (sf)         Subordinate    Fixed           76.51
C         A+ (sf)         Subordinate    Fixed           94.99
D         BBB (sf)        Subordinate    Fixed           93.40
E(iii)    BB (sf)         Subordinate    Fixed           24.81

  (i) The tranches' coupons will be determined on the pricing
      date.
(ii) The class A-2 notes will be split into a fixed-rate class A-
      2-A and a floating-rate class A-2-B.  The size of each of
      the class A-2-A and A-2-B will be determined at pricing.
      The A-2-B coupon will be expressed as a spread to one-month
      LIBOR.
(iii) Class E will be privately placed or retained and is not
      included in the public offering amount.


ANTHRACITE 2005-HY2: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to CC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on the
class C-FL and C-FX notes from Anthracite 2005-HY2 Ltd., a U.S.
commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO)
transaction.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the
class A and B notes from the same transaction.  In addition, S&P
removed its ratings on class C-FL and C-FX notes from CreditWatch,
where they were placed with negative implications on July 2, 2014.

The downgrades reflect S&P's analysis of the transaction's
liability structure and credit characteristics of the underlying
collateral, using its criteria for rating global CDOs of pooled
structured finance assets.  According to the July 2014 trustee
report, the amount of defaulted collateral in the transaction is
46.5% of the overall collateral pool, compared to 48.1% reported
in June 2012 which S&P used for its July 2012 rating actions.  S&P
lowered its ratings on the class C-FL and C-FX notes to 'CC (sf)'
based on its expectation that the classes are not likely to be
repaid in full.  The class C notes would need two-thirds of the
defaulted assets to fully recover to be paid out in full.

Since the transaction closed in July 2005, the class A notes have
paid down $86.3 million, which is 74.15% of its original balance.
The affirmations of the class A and B notes reflect the sufficient
credit support available to the notes at their current rating
levels as well as the continued paydowns to the class A notes.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

RATING ACTIONS

Anthracite 2005-HY2 Ltd.

                 Rating
Class       To            From
A           BB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)
B           CCC- (sf)     CCC- (sf)
C-FL        CC (sf)       CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg
C-FX        CC (sf)       CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg

OTHER RATINGS OUTSTANDING

Class             Rating
D-FL              D (sf)
D-FX              D (sf)
E                 D (sf)
F                 D (sf)


APOLLO CREDIT I: S&P Withdraws BB Rating on Two Series
------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on the
series 2006-1 and 2007-3 notes from Apollo Credit Funding I Ltd.,
a market value collateralized debt obligation formerly known as
Stone Tower Credit Funding I Ltd., at the issuer's request.  At
the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the other five
outstanding series.  S&P ran the transaction through its Market
Value Evaluator and all the series were able to maintain their
current 'BB (sf)' ratings.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

RATINGS LIST

Apollo Credit Funding I Ltd.
                      Rating
Series   Identifier   To        From
2006-2   86176NAB2    BB (sf)   BB (sf)
2006-1   86176NAA4    NR        BB (sf)
2006-3   86176NAC0    BB (sf)   BB (sf)
2006-4   86176NAD8    BB (sf)   BB (sf)
2007-1   86176NAH9    BB (sf)   BB (sf)
2007-2   86176NAJ5    BB (sf)   BB (sf)
2007-3   86176NAM8    NR        BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.


ARBOR REALTY 2005-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. G Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Arbor Realty Mortgage Securities Series
2005-1 ("Arbor Realty 2005-1"):

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed
Aa3 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed
Baa2 (sf)

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

Cl. C, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed Caa2
(sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 9, 2013 Affirmed Caa3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the ratings of two classes of notes due to
lower than expected term and maturity defaults, resulting in rapid
amortization as the assets reach maturity. This more than offsets
increases in credit risk of the remaining asset pool as evidenced
by the WARF and decreases in recovery rates as evidenced by the
WARR. Moody's has affirmed the ratings on six classes of notes
because the key transaction metrics are commensurate with existing
ratings. The affirmation is the result of Moody's on-going
surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized debt
obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

Arbor Realty 2005-1 is a cash transaction whose reinvestment
period ended in April 2011. The transaction is backed by a
portfolio of: i) whole loans and a-notes (47.0% of the current
pool balance); ii) b-notes (34.3%); and iii) mezzanine interests
(18.7%). As of the July 15, 2014 trustee report, the aggregate
note balance of the transaction, including preferred shares, has
decreased to $287.4 million, from $475.0 million at issuance, with
the pay-down currently directed to the senior most outstanding
class of notes. While the transaction is a sequential payment
structure, the class C through class H note balances are reduced
from transaction issuance as a result of a pari-passu payment
feature that was active during the transaction reinvestment
period.

The pool contains two assets totaling $31.0 million (11.0% of the
collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted securities
as of the July 15, 2014 trustee report. While there have been
limited realized losses on the underlying collateral to date,
Moody's does expect moderate losses to occur on the defaulted
securities.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CLO transactions: the weighted average rating
factor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weighted
average recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).
Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for static
deals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 8,063
compared to 7,566 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 (1.0% compared to 0.7% at last
review), Ba1-Ba3 (1.4% compared to 1.0% at last review), B1-B3
(8.0% compared to 7.8% at last review), and Caa1-C (89.6% compared
to 90.5% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 1.9 years, compared to 2.3 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 27.1%, compared to 31.1% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, the same as that at last review.
The MAC reflects a concentration of high credit risk assets within
a small number of obligors.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty, because it
is sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, which
in turn depends on economic and credit conditions that are subject
to change. The servicing decisions of the master and special
servicer and surveillance by the operating advisor with respect to
the collateral interests and oversight of the transaction will
also affect the performance of the rated notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption
could be offset by a change in one or more of the other key
parameter assumptions. The rated notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Reducing the recovery rates of 100% of the
collateral pool by 10% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of 0 to 9 notches downward (e.g., one
notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing
the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral pool by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
0 to 12 notches upward (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings
movement of Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given
the weak recovery and commercial real estate property markets.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.
However, sustained growth will not be possible until investment
increases steadily for a significant period, non-performing
properties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro area
recession abate.


ARBOR REALTY 2004-1: Moody's Affirms Caa2 Rating on Cl. C Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by Arbor Realty Mortgage Securities Series 2004-1,
Ltd. ("Arbor Realty 2004-1"):

Cl. A, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
A1 (sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Ba2 (sf)

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

Cl. C, Affirmed Caa2 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa2 (sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has upgraded the rating on two classes of notes due to
lower than expected term and maturity defaults, resulting in rapid
amortization as the assets reach maturity. This more than offsets
increases in credit risk of the remaining asset pool as evidenced
by the WARF and decreases in recovery rates as evidenced by the
WARR. Moody's has affirmed the ratings on two classes of notes
because the key transaction metrics are commensurate with existing
ratings. The affirmation is the result of Moody's on-going
surveillance of commercial real estate collateralized debt
obligation (CRE CDO CLO) transactions.

Arbor Realty 2004-1 is a cash transaction whose reinvestment
period ended in April 2009. The transaction is backed by a
portfolio of: i) b-notes (52.0% of the current pool balance); ii)
mezzanine interests (27.4%); and iii) whole loans and a-notes
(20.4%). As of the July 15, 2014 trustee report, the aggregate
note balance of the transaction, including preferred shares, has
decreased to $283.3 million, from $469.0 million at issuance, with
the pay-down currently directed to the senior most outstanding
class of notes. While the transaction is a sequential payment
structure, the class C and class D note balances are reduced from
transaction issuance as a result of a pari-passu payment feature
that was active during the transaction reinvestment period.

The pool contains eight assets totaling $53.4 million (20.9% of
the collateral pool balance) that are listed as defaulted
securities as of the July 15, 2014 trustee report. While there
have been limited realized losses on the underlying collateral to
date, Moody's does expect low/moderate losses to occur on the
defaulted securities.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CLO transactions: the weighted average rating
factor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weighted
average recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).
Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for static
deals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CLO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 8,108
compared to 7,919 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: B1-B3 (12.9% compared to 7.1% at last
review), and Caa1-C (87.1% compared to 92.9% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.0 years, compared to 2.1 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 14.1%, compared to 19.4% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, the same as that at last review.
The MAC reflects a concentration of high credit risk assets within
a small number of obligors.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty, because it
is sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, which
in turn depends on economic and credit conditions that are subject
to change. The servicing decisions of the master and special
servicer and surveillance by the operating advisor with respect to
the collateral interests and oversight of the transaction will
also affect the performance of the rated notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for some of the
rated notes, although a change in one key parameter assumption
could be offset by a change in one or more of the other key
parameter assumptions. The rated notes are particularly sensitive
to changes in the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and
credit assessments. Reducing the recovery rates of 100% of the
collateral pool by 10% would result in an average modeled rating
movement on the rated notes of 0 to 6 notches downward (e.g., one
notch down implies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing
the recovery rate of 100% of the collateral pool by 10% would
result in an average modeled rating movement on the rated notes of
1 to 3 notches upward (e.g., one notch up implies a ratings
movement of Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given
the weak recovery and commercial real estate property markets.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.
However, sustained growth will not be possible until investment
increases steadily for a significant period, non-performing
properties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro area
recession abate.


ASHFORD CDO II: Moody's Ups Rating on $16MM Cl. B-2L Notes to Ca
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on notes issued
by Ashford CDO II, Ltd.:

$175,000,000 Class A-1LA Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041
(current outstanding balance of $24,479,696.70), Upgraded to Aaa
(sf); previously on November 19, 2013 Upgraded to A1 (sf)

$42,000,000 Class A-1LB Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041,
Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on November 19, 2013 Upgraded to
A3 (sf)

$51,000,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041,
Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on November 19, 2013 Upgraded to
Baa2 (sf)

$34,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041,
Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on November 19, 2013 Upgraded to
Ba1 (sf)

$22,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041
(current outstanding balance of $21,467,502.39), Upgraded to Ba2
(sf); previously on November 19, 2013 Upgraded to B1 (sf)

$16,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due November, 2041
(current outstanding balance of $22,999,919.52), Upgraded to Ca
(sf); previously on December 19, 2011 Confirmed at C (sf)

Ashford CDO II, Ltd., issued in June 2006, is a collateralized
debt obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of CLOs,
originated between 2004 and 2006.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are due primarily to the deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since November 2013. The Class A-1LA
notes have paid down by approximately 73%, or $66.2 million. Based
on the trustee's July 2014 report, the OC ratios for the Class A,
Class B-1L, and Class B-2L notes are reported at 123.96%, 107.12%,
and 96.03%, respectively, versus November 2013 levels of 116.78%,
100.43%, and 91.97%, respectively. Moody's also notes that the
Class B-2L has begun to receive payments of previously deferred
interest.

The deal has also benefited from an improvement in the credit
quality of the underlying portfolio since November 2013. Based on
the trustee's July 2014 report, the weighted average rating factor
is currently 545, compared to 775 in November 2013.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs," published in March 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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: The performance of SF CDOs backed by
CLOs (CLO Squareds) could be negatively affected by 1) uncertainty
about credit conditions in the general economy (macroeconomic
uncertainty), and 2) the large concentration of upcoming
speculative-grade debt maturities, which could make refinancing
difficult for issuers. Additionally, the performance of the CLO
assets can also be affected positively or negatively by 1) the
manager's investment strategy and behavior and 2) differences in
the legal interpretation of CLO documentation by different
transactional parties owing to embedded ambiguities.

2) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds,
recoveries from defaulted assets, and excess interest proceeds
will continue and at what pace. Faster deleveraging than Moody's
expects could have a significant impact on the notes' ratings.

3) Recovery of defaulted assets: The amount of recoveries received
from defaulted assets reported by the trustee and those that
Moody's assumes as having defaulted as well as the timing of these
recoveries create additional uncertainty. Moody's analyzed
defaulted assets assuming no recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries in the future would positively
impact the notes' ratings.

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):

Ba1 and below ratings notched up by two rating notches:

Class A-1LA: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: +1

Class B-1L: +1

Class B-2L: 0

Ba1 and below ratings notched down by two notches:

Class A-1LA: 0

Class A-1LB: 0

Class A-2L: -1

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2L: 0

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applies a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) to model the loss distribution for SF CDOs. The
simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios define the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then uses the loss distribution as an input in the CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par and
weighted average rating factor, 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 $191.7 million,
defaulted par of $18 million, a weighted average default
probability of 2.15% (implying a WARF of 545), and a weighted
average spread of 2.29%.


ARROWPOINT CLO 2014-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. B Rating on F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Arrowpoint CLO 2014-3 Ltd./Arrowpoint CLO 2014-3 LLC's
$376.60 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 Aug. 19,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- 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 (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 0.2381%-12.7531%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization (O/C) and interest
      coverage (I/C) 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

Arrowpoint CLO 2014-3 Ltd./Arrowpoint CLO 2014-3 LLC

Class                Rating                        Amount
                                                 (mil. $)
A                    AAA (sf)                      250.00
B                    AA (sf)                        48.00
C                    A (sf)                         32.40
D                    BBB (sf)                       22.00
E                    BB (sf)                        17.20
F                    B (sf)                          7.00
Subordinated notes   NR                             38.40

NR-Not rated.


ATRIUM VII: S&P Assigns 'BB+' Rating on Class E-R Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on the
original class A, B, C, D, E, and F notes from Atrium VII, a
collateralized loan obligation transaction managed by Credit
Suisse Asset Management LLC, after the notes were redeemed in
full.  At the same time, S&P assigned ratings to the replacement
class A-R, B-R, C-R, D-R, E-R, and F-R notes.

The replacement notes were issued via a supplemental indenture.
The supplemental indenture also included provisions that prohibit
investment in non-loan collateral.  There was no change to the
duration of the reinvestment period, which ends in Nov. 2014.

All of the proceeds from the replacement notes were used to redeem
the original notes as outlined by provisions in the transaction
documents.  The replacement notes were issued at a lower spread
over LIBOR than the original notes.

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS RESULTS

Current date before refinancing
Class      Amount   Interest          BDR      SDR    Cushion
         (mil. $)   rate (%)          (%)      (%)        (%)
A          253.00   LIBOR + 1.55    68.91    61.06       7.85
B           41.00   LIBOR + 3.00    67.33    53.42      13.91
C           33.00   LIBOR + 3.50    55.06    47.26       7.80
D           20.00   LIBOR + 4.00    48.04    41.63       6.41
E            8.50   LIBOR + 5.50    48.80    36.61      12.19
F           10.00   LIBOR + 5.50    38.73    34.90       3.83

Current date after refinancing
A-R        253.00   LIBOR + 1.10    71.04    61.06       9.98
B-R         41.00   LIBOR + 1.75    69.75    53.42      16.33
C-R         33.00   LIBOR + 2.75    58.06    47.26      10.80
D-R         20.00   LIBOR + 3.75    51.31    41.63       9.68
E-R          8.50   LIBOR + 5.10    52.18    36.61      15.57
F-R         10.00   LIBOR + 5.50    42.21    34.90       7.31

Effective date
A          253.00   LIBOR + 1.55    69.42    64.08       5.34
B           41.00   LIBOR + 3.00    68.31    56.35      11.96
C           33.00   LIBOR + 3.50    57.26    50.18       7.08
D           20.00   LIBOR + 4.00    52.15    44.24       7.91
E            8.50   LIBOR + 5.50    54.80    39.10      15.70
F           10.00   LIBOR + 5.50    46.54    37.30       9.24

BDR-Break-even scenario.
SDR-Scenario default rate.

The supplemental indenture did not make any other substantive
changes to the transaction.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Atrium VII

                        Rating
Original class     To           From
A                  NR           AAA (sf)
B                  NR           AA (sf)
C                  NR           A (sf)
D                  NR           BBB (sf)
E                  NR           BB+ (sf)
F                  NR           BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Atrium VII

Replacement class       Rating
A-R                     AAA (sf)
B-R                     AA (sf)
C-R                     A (sf)
D-R                     BBB (sf)
E-R                     BB+ (sf)
F-R                     BB (sf)


ATRIUM VII: Moody's Assigns Ba1 Rating on $8.5MM Cl. E-R Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to two classes of
notes issued by Atrium VII:

$253,000,000 Class A-R Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2022 (the "Class A-R Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

$8,500,000 Class E-R Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2022 (the "Class E-R Notes"), Assigned Ba1 (sf)

The Class A-R Notes and Class E-R 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.

Atrium VII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 95% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 5% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and senior
unsecured loans. The underlying portfolio is 100% ramped as of the
closing date.

Credit Suisse Asset Management, LLC (the "Manager") manages the
CLO. It directs 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 remaining three month reinvestment period.
Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest up to 50% of unscheduled
principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit risk
obligations in additional collateral obligations, subject to
certain restrictions.

The Rated Notes are being issued on the closing date in connection
with the refinancing of the Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate
Notes due 2022 (the "Class A Notes") and the Class E Senior
Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes due 2022 (the "Class E
Notes") that the Issuer issued in November 2011. Proceeds from the
issuance of the Class A-R Notes and the Class E-R Notes on the
closing date will be used to redeem in full the Class A Notes and
the Class E Notes, respectively, that are being refinanced. In
November 2011, the Issuer issued four other tranches of secured
notes, which are also being refinanced, as well as subordinated
notes. Proceeds from the issuance of the additional refinanced
notes on the closing date will be used to redeem in full the other
tranches of notes that are also being refinanced.

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: $406,179,837

Diversity Score: 61

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2777

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.57%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 50.28%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 4.56 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 2777 to 3194)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class E-R Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2777 to 3610)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A-R Notes: 0

Class E-R Notes: -1

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. This V Score has
been assigned in a manner similar to the Medium/High V Score
assigned for the global cash flow CLO sector, as described in the
special report titled "V Scores and Parameter Sensitivities in the
Global Cash Flow CLO Sector," dated July 6, 2009 and available on
www.moodys.com.

Moody's V Score provides 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. The V Score applies to the entire
transaction, rather than individual tranches.


BAKER STREET 2005-1: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes from Baker Street Funding CLO 2005-1
Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation transaction managed by
Seix Investment Advisors LLC, and removed the ratings on the class
A-1 and A-2 notes from CreditWatch, where they were placed with
positive implications on June 18, 2014.  At the same time, S&P
affirmed its rating on the class E notes.

The upgrades mainly reflect pro rata paydowns to the class A-1 and
A-2 notes and a subsequent increase in the credit support
available to support all of the notes.  Since S&P's Dec. 2012
rating actions, the transaction has paid down the class A-1 and A-
2 notes by approximately $76.8 million and $11.5 million,
respectively, reducing the class A notes' total balance to 63.34%
of their original balance.  Although the transaction is no longer
in its reinvestment period, it can still reinvest credit risk and
prepaid collateral proceeds as long as certain conditions are met,
which S&P considered in its analysis.

The upgrades also reflect improved overcollateralization (O/C)
available to support all of the notes, primarily from the
aforementioned paydowns.  The trustee reported the following
increased O/C ratios in the August 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio was 128.63%, compared with 120.25%
      in Nov. 2012;

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 117.52%, compared with 112.96% in
      Nov. 2012;

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 109.76%, compared with 107.61% in
      Nov. 2012; and

   -- The class E O/C ratio was 105.32%, compared with 104.46% in
      Nov. 2012.

The 'B+ (sf)' rating on the class E notes is constrained by S&P's
applied largest obligor default test, which measures concentration
risk, and S&P's affirmation reflects adequate credit support
available at this rating.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Baker Street Funding CLO 2005-1 Ltd.

                              Cash flow   Cash flow
        Previous              implied     cushion    Final
Class   rating                rating      (i)        rating
A-1     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    31.70%     AAA (sf)
A-2     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    31.70%     AAA (sf)
B       AA+ (sf)              AAA (sf)    11.89%     AAA (sf)
C       A+ (sf)               AA+ (sf)    6.75%      AA+ (sf)
D       BBB (sf)              A (sf)      0.54%      BBB+ (sf)
E       B+ (sf)               BB+ (sf)    3.67%      B+ (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    Corr.       Corr.
         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        AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C        AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
D        A (sf)      BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
E        BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)    B+ (sf)     BB- (sf)    B+ (sf)

Corr.-Correlation.

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      Final
Class   implied rating   implied rating   implied rating   rating
A-1     AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
A-2     AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)         AAA (sf)
C       AA+ (sf)        AA+ (sf)         A+ (sf)          AA+ (sf)
D       A (sf)          A- (sf)          BB+ (sf)        BBB+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)        BB+ (sf)         CC (sf)         B+ (sf)

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

RATINGS LIST

Baker Street Funding CLO 2005-1 Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     05741PAA5    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2     05741PAB3    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B       05741PAC1    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C       05741PAD9    AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)
D       05741PAE7    BBB+ (sf)   BBB (sf)
E       05741NAA0    B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)


BAKER STREET II: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, B, C, and D notes from Baker Street CLO II Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation transaction managed by Seix
Investment Advisors LLC.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its 'B+
(sf)' rating on the class E notes from the same transaction.  In
addition, S&P removed its ratings on all classes from CreditWatch,
where they were placed with positive implications on June 18,
2014.

The upgrades mainly reflect paydowns to the class A notes and a
subsequent increase in the credit support available to support the
notes.

Since the end of the reinvestment period on Oct. 15, 2012, Baker
Street CLO II Ltd. has paid down the class A-1 and A-2 notes, pro
rata, by a total of about $72.5 million, reducing the outstanding
balance to 73.53% of their original balance.

The upgrades also reflect a significant improvement in the
overcollateralization (O/C) available to support the senior notes,
primarily due to the aforementioned paydowns.  The trustee
reported a class A/B O/C ratio of 123.95% in the July 2014 report,
which S&P used for this analysis, up from the 121.13% noted in the
Oct. 2011 report, which S&P used for its Nov. 2011 rating actions.
All other O/C ratios have healthy cushions over their trigger
values.

After the reinvestment period, the transaction can reinvest credit
risk proceeds and unscheduled prepayment of principal so long as
certain conditions are met.  According to the July 8, 2014,
trustee report dated, the transaction held about $38.99 million in
such proceeds that could potentially be reinvested in new
collateral.

The ratings on the class C, D, and E notes are constrained at 'A+
(sf)', 'BBB+ (sf)', and 'B+ (sf)', respectively, by the
application of S&P's largest-obligor default test, which measures
concentration risk.  S&P's affirmation of the rating on the class
E notes reflects the availability of adequate credit support at
the current rating level.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Baker Street CLO II Ltd.
                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied    Cash flow    Final
Class   rating                rating     cushion(i)   rating
A-1     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)   10.50%       AAA (sf)
A-2     AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)   10.50%       AAA (sf)
B       AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)   13.71%       AA+ (sf)
C       AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA (sf)    0.87%        A+ (sf)
D       A- (sf)/Watch Pos     A- (sf)    1.33%        BBB+ (sf)
E       B+ (sf)/Watch Pos     BB+ (sf)   5.57%        B+ (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.

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

                    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       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C       AA (sf)     A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)       A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)
D       A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)  BBB+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)    B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)       B+ (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)
B       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)        AA+ (sf)
C       AA (sf)     A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)      A+ (sf)
D       A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)     BB (sf)        BBB+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)    B+ (sf)       CCC+ (sf)      B+ (sf)

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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 LIST

Baker Street CLO II Ltd.

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     05741RAA1    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2     05741RAB9    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B       05741RAC7    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
C       05741RAE3    A+ (sf)     A- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       05741RAG8    BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
E       05741TAA7    B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)/Watch Pos


BHMS 2014-ATLS: S&P Assigns 'B-' Rating on 2 Note Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to BHMS
2014-ATLS Mortgage Trust's $1.0 billion commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates series 2014-ATLS.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by a first-lien mortgage on the
borrowers' fee interest in the Atlantis Resort, totaling 2,917
guestrooms, in Paradise Island, Bahamas.  The mortgage loan is
further secured by pledges of equity interests in several
additional borrowers.  The $1.0 billion commercial mortgage loan
is split into two floating-rate components totaling $350.0 million
and two fixed-rate components totaling $650.0 million.  The
floating-rate components have a three-year initial term and a
fully extended maturity at seven years.  The fixed-rate components
have a seven-year term.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's historical and
projected performance, the sponsor's and manager's experience, the
trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, and the
transaction's structure.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

BHMS 2014-ATLS Mortgage Trust

Class                  Rating(i)         Amount ($)
A-FX                   NR               301,521,000
X-CPFX                 NR                29,417,000(ii)
X-EXTFX                NR                29,417,000(ii)
B-FX                   NR                59,511,000
C-FX                   NR                40,018,000
D-FX                   BB+ (sf)          67,758,000
E-FX                   BB- (sf)          81,533,000
F-FX                   B- (sf)           99,659,000
A-FL                   NR               162,357,000
X-CPFL                 NR                17,013,000(ii)
X-EXTFL                NR               17, 013,000(ii)
B-FL                   NR                32,044,000
C-FL                   NR                21,549,000
D-FL                   BB+ (sf)          36,485,000
E-FL                   BB- (sf)          43,901,000
F-FL                   B- (sf)           53,664,000

(i) The issuer will issue the certificates to qualified
     institutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities
     Act of 1933.
(ii) The class X-CPFX, X-CPFL, X-EXTFX, and X-EXTFL certificate
     amounts will be reduced by the aggregate principal
     distributions and realized losses allocated to a portion of
     the class A certificates.
NR--Not rated.


BLACK DIAMOND CLO 2014-1: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Black Diamond CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Black Diamond CLO 2014-1
LLC's $367.60 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 Aug. 14,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's assessment 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 primarily
      comprises 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 0.2381%-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 interest diversion test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of up to 50% of the
      excess interest proceeds that are available (before paying
      uncapped administrative expenses, the supplemental reserve
      account, subordinated and incentive collateral management
      fees, and subordinated note payments) as principal proceeds
      to purchase additional collateral obligations during the
      reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Black Diamond CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Black Diamond CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                Rating          Amount (mil. $)
A-1                  AAA (sf)                 247.10
A-2                  AA (sf)                   44.30
B (deferrable)       A (sf)                    37.80
C (deferrable)       BBB (sf)                  20.70
D (deferrable)       BB (sf)                   17.70
Subordinated notes   NR                        44.15

NR-Not rated.


BNPP IP CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms B Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on BNPP IP
CLO 2014-1 Ltd./BNPP IP CLO 2014-1 LLC's $368.50 million floating-
rate notes following the transaction's effective date as of
July 8, 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 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 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 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 said.

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 S&P deems
necessary.

RATINGS LIST

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

                         Rating       Rating
Class     Identifier     To           From
A-1       05579QAA0      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-2       05579QAB8      AA (sf)      AA (sf)
B         05579QAC6      A (sf)       A (sf)
C         05579QAD4      BBB (sf)     BBB (sf)
D         05579RAA8      BB (sf)      BB (sf)
E         05579RAB6      B (sf)       B (sf)


CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE: Moody's Rates A-2 2006 & 2007 Bonds 'B1'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Issue: Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds 2006 Series A-1 Bonds
(Current Interest Bonds); Rating: A3; Sale Amount: $27,985,000;
Expected Sale Date: 8/25/2014; Rating Description: General
Obligation Limited Tax

Issue: Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds 2006 Series A-2 Bonds
(Capital Appreciation Bonds); Rating: B1; Sale Amount:
$34,828,647; Expected Sale Date: 8/25/2014; Rating Description:
General Obligation Limited Tax

Issue: Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds 2007 Series A-1 Bonds
(Current Interest Bonds); Rating: A3; Sale Amount: $65,140,000;
Expected Sale Date: 8/25/2014; Rating Description: General
Obligation Limited Tax

Issue: Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds 2007 Series A-2 Bonds
(Capital Appreciation Bonds); Rating: B1; Sale Amount:
$22,335,699; Expected Sale Date: 8/25/2014; Rating Description:
General Obligation Limited Tax

Opinion

Moody's Investors Service has assigned the following ratings to
various taxable pension obligation bonds issued by the California
Statewide Communities Development Authority: Series 2006 A-1, A3,
Series 2006 A-2, B1, Series 2007 A-1, A3 and Series 2007 A-2, B1.
The rating action affects approximately $150.3 million in debt.

Rating Rationale

In consideration of the small size of these pools and absence of
any cross-collateralization among the various participants, the
rating assignment for each series is based Moody's weak-link-plus
approach to pooled obligations. This approach allows for a lift of
up to 2 notches above the lowest rated participant's individual
obligation. The uplift cannot exceed the weighted average credit
quality of the pool participants, with the weights being each
participant's proportionate share of the debt service on the
applicable series of bonds. Additionally, if one of the
participants has a speculative-grade rating, the rating of the
applicable series of bonds cannot exceed Ba1.

The rating rationale for each series of bonds is as follows:

* For the Series 2006 A-1 bonds, the rating is A3, because the
pension obligation of the lowest rated entity in the pool is A3.
The cities, and their respective participation in the pool are
Auburn (17.7%), Benicia (26.6%), Novato (55.6%) and Pacific Grove
(0.1%).

* For the Series 2006 A-2 bonds, the rating is B1, because the
pension obligation of the lowest rated entity in the pool is B1.
The cities, and their respective participation in the pool are
Benicia (18.8%), Novato (7.9%), Pacific Grove (55.5%) and Pinole
(17.8%).

* For the Series 2007 A-1 bonds, the rating is A3, because the
weighted average rating of the pool participants' pension
obligations is A3. The cities, and their respective participation
in the pool are Baldwin Park (19.7%), Marina (6.6%), Oroville
(11.1%), Palm Springs (22.7%), Port Hueneme (6.6%), San Marino
(10.9%), Seaside (10.6%) and Yuba City (11.8%).

* For the Series 2007 A-2 bonds, the rating is B1, because the
pension obligation of lowest rated entity in the pool is B1. The
cities, and their respective participation in the pool are Palm
Springs (22.6%), Paradise (48.9%) and Port Hueneme (28.5%).

Strengths

-- Unconditional pledge of each participant

-- Diversity of pool participants

Challenges

-- No debt service reserve fund or step-up provisions

-- Purpose of pledge, the refinancing of pension obligations, may
be less essential than other types of projects that are supported
by the same pledge, such as lease obligations

-- A number of the participants have very weak balance sheets, in
large part owing to their inability to recoup loans made to their
redevelopment agencies subsequent the agencies dissolution in 2012

What Could Move The Rating Up

-- Weighted average rating of each pool improves as the result of
improved credit assessments of participants

What Could Move The Rating Down

-- Deterioration in the credit quality of the participants,
lowering the weighted average rating of each pool

The principal methodology used in this rating was Public Sector
Pool Financings published in July 2012.


CATAMARAN CLO 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. 'BB' Rating on D Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Catamaran CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Catamaran CLO 2014-2 LLC's
$425.00 million floating-rate notes.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Aug. 15,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- 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 comprises
      primarily broadly syndicated speculative-grade senior
      secured term loans.

   -- The collateral manager's experienced management team.

   -- The transaction's ability to make 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 0.2600%-13.8391%.

   -- 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 diversion test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of excess interest
      proceeds that are available before paying uncapped
      administrative expenses and fees, hedge termination
      payments, subordinated, deferred senior, and incentive
      management fees, and subordinated note payments to principal
      proceeds to purchase additional collateral assets during the
      reinvestment period.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Catamaran CLO 2014-2 Ltd./Catamaran CLO 2014-2 LLC

Class                Rating                   Amount
                                             (mil. $)
A-1                  AAA (sf)                 283.50
A-2                  AA (sf)                   53.75
B (deferrable)       A (sf)                    35.50
C (deferrable)       BBB (sf)                  23.25
D (deferrable)       BB (sf)                   19.25
E (deferrable)       B (sf)                     9.75
Subordinated notes   NR                        39.75

NR--Not rated.


CEDARWOODS CRE: S&P Lowers Rating on Class B Notes to CC
--------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on five
classes from Cedarwoods CRE CDO Ltd., a commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction that closed
in July 2006.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on one
class from the same transaction.  S&P also removed two ratings
from CreditWatch, where it placed them with negative implications
on July 2, 2014.

The downgrades reflect an ongoing reduction in the transaction's
collateral as well as the transaction's exposure to the
subordinate certificates of the underlying commercial mortgage-
backed securities (CMBS).  The July 21, 2014, trustee report
states the following principal coverage test ratios:

   -- The class A/B ratio decreased to 76.34% from 77.91% in the
      Dec. 19, 2012, trustee report, which S&P referenced in its
      Jan. 2013 rating actions.

   -- Class C decreased to 72.32% from 74.37% in December 2012.

   -- Class D/E decreased to 67.86% from 70.43% in December 2012.

   -- Class F decreased to 66.48% from 69.23% in December 2012.

These coverage ratios are failing their respective coverage tests
by a significant amount.  In addition, the transaction contains
ongoing exposure to an interest rate swap that is currently using
almost all available interest proceeds on each payment date.

S&P lowered its ratings on the class B, C, and D notes to 'CC
(sf)' from 'CCC- (sf)' based on its expectation that the classes
are unlikely to be repaid in full.

The affirmation of the class A-3 notes reflects S&P's belief that
the credit support available to the notes is commensurate with the
current rating level.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

RATINGS LOWERED

Cedarwoods CRE CDO Ltd.

                  Rating
Class     To                   From
A-1       B- (sf)              B (sf)
A-2       CCC (sf)             CCC+ (sf)
B         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)

RATINGS LOWERED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Cedarwoods CRE CDO Ltd.

                  Rating
Class     To                   From
C         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg
D         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Cedarwoods CRE CDO Ltd.

Class     Rating
A-3       CCC- (sf)

OTHER RATINGS

Cedarwoods CRE CDO Ltd.

Class     Rating
E         D (sf)
F         D (sf)


CEDARWOODS CRE II: S&P Lowers Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'CCC-'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on five
classes from Cedarwoods CRE CDO II Ltd., a commercial real estate
collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction that closed
in Feb. 2007.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on two
classes from the same transaction.  S&P also removed three ratings
from CreditWatch, where it placed them with negative implications
on July 2, 2014.

The downgrades reflect an ongoing reduction in the transaction's
collateral as well as the transaction's exposure to the
subordinate certificates of the underlying commercial mortgage-
backed securities (CMBS).  The July 21, 2014, trustee report
states the following principal coverage test ratios:

   -- The class A/B ratio decreased to 77.55% from 81.04% noted in
      the March 19, 2013, trustee report, which S&P referenced in
      its April 2013 rating actions.

   -- Class C decreased to 73.89% from 77.85% in March 2013.

   -- Class D/E decreased to 69.63% from 74.10% in March 2013.

These coverage ratios are failing their respective coverage tests
by a significant amount.  In addition, the transaction contains
ongoing exposure to an interest rate swap that is currently using
almost all available interest proceeds on each payment date.

S&P lowered its ratings on the class C, D, and E notes to 'CC
(sf)' from 'CCC- (sf)' based on its expectation that the classes
are unlikely to be repaid in full.

The affirmations of the class A-1 and B notes reflect S&P's belief
that the credit support available to the notes is commensurate
with their current rating levels.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

RATINGS LOWERED

Cedarwoods CRE CDO II Ltd.

                  Rating
Class     To                   From
A-2       CCC- (sf)            CCC+ (sf)
A-3       CCC- (sf)            CCC (sf)

RATINGS LOWERED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Cedarwoods CRE CDO II Ltd.

                  Rating
Class     To                   From
C         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg
D         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg
E         CC (sf)              CCC- (sf)/Watch Neg

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Cedarwoods CRE CDO II Ltd.

Class     Rating
A-1       B- (sf)
B         CCC- (sf)

OTHER RATINGS

Cedarwoods CRE CDO II Ltd.

Class     Rating
F         D (sf)


CFIP CLO 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on CFIP
CLO 2014-1 Ltd./CFIP CLO 2014-1 LLC's $371.25 million floating-
rate notes following the transaction's effective date as of
June 20, 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 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 S&P's published effective date report, it discusses its
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, S&P intends to
publish an effective date report each time it issues an effective
date rating affirmation on a publicly rated U.S. cash flow CLO.

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 S&P deems
necessary.

RATINGS AFFIRMED

CFIP CLO 2014-1 Ltd./CFIP CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                      (mil. $)
A-1                        AAA (sf)                     189.00
A-2                        AAA (sf)                      64.50
B                          AA (sf)                       50.00
C                          A (sf)                        31.25
D                          BBB (sf)                      20.00
E                          BB (sf)                       16.50


CIFC FUNDING 2012-I: S&P Withdraws B Rating on Class B3L Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on the
original class A1L, A1F, A2L, A3L, B1L, B2L, and B3L notes from
CIFC Funding 2012-I Ltd., a collateralized loan obligation
transaction managed by CIFC Asset Management LLC, after the notes
were redeemed in full.  At the same time, S&P assigned ratings to
the replacement class A-1R, A-2R, A-3R, B-1R, B-2R, B-3R notes.

The replacement notes were issued via a supplemental indenture.
The supplemental indenture also included provisions that limit
investment in non-loan collateral, subject to certain conditions
outlined in the transaction documents.  There was no change to the
duration of the reinvestment period, which ends in August 2016.

All of the proceeds from the replacement notes were used to redeem
the original notes as outlined by provisions in the transaction
documents.  The replacement notes were issued at a lower spread
over LIBOR than the original notes.

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS RESULTS

Current date before refinancing
Class      Amount   Interest          BDR      SDR    Cushion
         (mil. $)   rate (%)          (%)      (%)        (%)
A1L        280.00   LIBOR + 1.440   66.02    61.19       4.84
A1F         18.00   2.661           66.02    61.19       4.84
A2L         34.00   LIBOR + 2.800   67.02    53.42      13.60
A3L         34.00   LIBOR + 3.500   57.31    47.54       9.77
B1L         24.00   LIBOR + 5.250   50.67    41.75       8.92
B2L         23.00   LIBOR + 7.000   39.80    32.89       6.91
B3L         10.00   LIBOR + 8.500   31.99    29.36       2.62

Current date after refinancing
A-1R       298.00   LIBOR + 1.15(i) 65.20    61.19       4.01
A-2R        34.00   LIBOR + 2.10    67.02    53.42      13.61
A-3R        34.00   LIBOR + 3.07    57.39    47.54       9.86
B-1R        24.00   LIBOR + 4.15    51.31    41.75       9.57
B-2R        23.00   LIBOR + 6.25    39.30    32.89       6.41
B-3R        10.00   LIBOR + 7.83    31.98    29.36       2.62

Effective date
A1L        280.00   LIBOR + 1.440   65.63    64.60       1.03
A1F         18.00   2.661           65.63    64.60       1.03
A2L         34.00   LIBOR + 2.800   66.17    56.76       9.41
A3L         34.00   LIBOR + 3.500   57.03    50.73       6.31
B1L         24.00   LIBOR + 5.250   50.30    44.58       5.72
B2L         23.00   LIBOR + 7.000   39.27    35.07       4.20
B3L         10.00   LIBOR + 8.500   37.09    31.26       5.82

(i) The class A-1R notes will accrue interest at a spread of
     three-month LIBOR plus 1.15% from (and including) the
     refinancing date to (but excluding) the Aug. 2016 payment
     date, and three-month LIBOR plus 1.90% thereafter.
BDR-Break-even scenario.
SDR-Scenario default rate.

The supplemental indenture did not make any other substantive
changes to the transaction.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

CIFC Funding 2012-I Ltd.

                        Rating
Original class     To           From
A1L                NR           AAA (sf)
A1F                NR           AAA (sf)
A2L                NR           AA (sf)
A3L                NR           A (sf)
B1L                NR           BBB (sf)
B2L                NR           BB- (sf)
B3L                NR           B (sf)

NR-Not rated.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

CIFC Funding 2012-I Ltd.

Replacement class        Rating
A-1R                     AAA (sf)
A-2R                     AA (sf)
A-3R                     A (sf)
B-1R                     BBB (sf)
B-2R                     BB- (sf)
B-3R                     B (sf)


CIT CLO I: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
C and D notes from CIT CLO I Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction managed by CIT Asset Management LLC.
In addition, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A, B, and E
notes and removed its ratings on the class C, D, and E notes from
CreditWatch, where S&P placed them with positive implications on
June 18, 2014.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the monthly report, dated June 26,
2014.

The upgrades reflect the paydown to the class A notes, as well as
the underlying collateral's improved credit quality since S&P's
December 2013 rating actions.  The affirmations reflect S&P's
belief that the credit support available is commensurate with the
current rating levels.

The transaction exited its reinvestment period in June 2013.
Since S&P's Dec. 2013 rating actions, the transaction has paid
down $171.76 million to the class A notes, improving the
transaction's class A/B, C, D, and E principal coverage
(overcollateralization) ratios.  Class A has 4.67% of its par
balance at issuance remaining.

According to the June 2014 monthly report, the amount of 'CCC'
rated collateral held in the transaction's asset portfolio
significantly decreased to $10.13 million from the $16.31 million
noted in the October 2013 trustee report, which S&P used for its
December 2013 rating actions.

Currrently, the transaction does not hold any underlying
collateral obligations that it considers defaulted.

The ratings on the class D and E notes are constrained by the
application of the largest obligor default test, which addresses
event risk and model risk.  The rating actions on these classes
are in line with that constraint.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In
line with S&P's criteria, its cash flow scenarios applied forward-
looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's analysis
considered the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or
ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.  The results of
the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in S&P's view, that all of
the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement
available at the rating levels associated with this rating action.

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

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON

CIT CLO I Ltd.

                           Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                      October 2013               June 2014
A                          188.23                     16.47
B                          29.00                      29.00
C                          36.40                      36.40
D                          24.00                      24.00
E                          25.00                      25.00

Principal coverage tests and WAS (%)
A/B principal coverage     150.81                     344.77
C principal coverage       129.17                     191.49
D principal coverage       118.00                     148.08
E principal coverage       108.26                     119.79
A/B I/C                    983.48                     1816.07
C I/C                      703.44                     712.92
D I/C                      525.88                     413.08
E I/C                      326.00                     203.77
WAS                        3.13                       3.09

WAS-Weighted average spread.
I/C-Interest coverage test.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

CIT CLO I Ltd.

                             Cash flow   Cash flow
        Previous             implied     cushion   Final
Class   rating               rating      (i)       rating
A       AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    27.49%    AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    27.49%    AAA (sf)
C       AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    27.49%    AAA (sf)
D       A+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    13.20%    AA+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   A+ (sf)     7.83%     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.

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

                    Recovery   Corr.      Corr.
        Cash flow   decrease   increase   decrease
        implied     implied    implied    implied    Final
Class   rating      rating     rating     rating     rating
A       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
D       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)
E       A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)    AA- (sf)   BB+ (sf)

Corr.-Correlation.

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       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
D       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)
E       A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

CIT CLO I Ltd.
                     Rating     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A       125561AA8    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B       125561AC4    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
C       125561AE0    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D       125561AG5    AA+ (sf)   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E       125561AJ9    BB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos


COMM 2005-FL11: S&P Withdraws 'D' Rating on Class L Notes
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed and then subsequently
withdrew the 'D (sf)' ratings on 56 classes from eight U.S.
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and one commercial
real estate-collateralized debt obligation (CRE-CDO) transactions.

S&P affirmed and subsequently withdrew the outstanding 'D (sf)'
ratings on the affected classes because it is no longer providing
ongoing surveillance.  S&P previously lowered the ratings to 'D
(sf)' because of principal losses, accumulated interest shortfalls
that S&P believed would remain outstanding for an extended period
of time, interest shortfalls that the nondeferrable classes
experienced, or S&P's expectation that the classes were unlikely
to be repaid in full.

RATINGS AFFIRMED AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN

COMM 2005-FL11
Commercial mortgage-backed securities pass-through certificates
series
2005-FL11

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2001-CKN5

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
H         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
M         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2007-TFL2

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
A-3       NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
B         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
C         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
D         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
E         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
F         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
G         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
H         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

First Union National Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2001-C2

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
O         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
P         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2002-C1

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
M         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
N         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
O         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

Greenwich Capital Commercial Funding Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-FL4

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
D         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
E         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
F         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
G         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
H         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2002-C3

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
F         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
G         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
H         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
M         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
N         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

LNR CDO III Ltd.
Collateralized debt obligations series 2005-1

                   Rating
Class     To       Interim          From
A         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
B         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
C         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
D         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
E-FL      NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
E-FX      NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
F-FL      NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
F-FX      NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
G         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
H         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

Salomon Brothers Commercial Mortgage Trust 2001-C1
Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2001-C1

                   Rating

Class     To       Interim          From
J         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
K         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
L         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
M         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)
N         NR       D (sf)           D (sf)

NR--Not rated.


COMM 2012-CCRE4: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. F Certificate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of 12 classes
in COMM 2012-CCRE4 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2012-CCRE4 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed A2 (sf); previously on Oct 24, 2013 Affirmed A2
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on the 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 IO classes were affirmed based on the credit
performance of their referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 2.5% of the
current balance compared to 2.4% at Moody's prior review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.5% of the
original pooled balance compared to 2.4% 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 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 structured credit assessments with the conduit
model credit enhancement for an overall model result. Moody's
incorporates negative pooling (adding credit enhancement at the
structured credit assessment level) for loans with similar
structured 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 20 compared to 21 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the July 18, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 1.5% to $1.09
billion from $1.11 billion at securitization. The Certificates are
collateralized by 48 mortgage loans ranging in size from less than
1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans representing 57% of
the pool. The pool contains no loans that have investment grade
structured credit assessments and no defeased loans.

One loan, representing 0.8% of the pool, is 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
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, Moody's reviews the
watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that could
impact performance.

No loans have been liquidated from the pool. Three cross-
collateralized and cross-defaulted loans, representing 0.7% of the
pool, are in special servicing. Moody's estimates a minimal loss
for the specially serviced loans.

Moody's received full-year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool. Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 93%, the same as at
Moody's last review. Moody's conduit component excludes loans with
structured 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 9.8%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.87X and 1.17X,
respectively, compared to 1.46X and 1.16X 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% stressed rate applied to the loan balance.

The top three performing conduit loans represent 28.9% of the pool
balance. The largest loan is the Prince Building Loan ($125.0
million -- 11.4% of the pool), which is secured by a mixed use
(retail / office) building located in Manhattan's SoHo District.
The property's leasable area includes 276,400 square feet (SF) of
office space, 69,300 SF of retail and 8,800 SF of storage space.
The loan represents a pari-passu interest in a $200.0 million loan
and is interest-only throughout the entire term. As of March 2014,
the retail component was 100% leased to three tenants with Equinox
(11% of the total NRA, lease expiration November 2020) as the
largest retail tenant. The total property was 95% leased as of
March 2014 compared to 99% as of June 2013. Moody's LTV and
stressed DSCR are 91% and 1.03X, respectively, the same as at last
review.

The second largest loan is the Eastview Mall and Commons Loan
($120.0 million -- 11.0% of the pool), which is secured by the
borrower's interest in a 725,300 SF portion of a 1.4 million SF
super regional mall and a 86,400 SF portion of a 341,900 SF
adjacent power center, both located in Victor, New York. The loan
represents a pari-passu interest in a $210.0 million loan and is
interest-only throughout the entire term. Year-end 2013 net
operating income for the property reflected a decline over year-
end 2012 due to a substantial increase in real estate taxes.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 89% and 1.00X, respectively,
compared to 85% and 1.05X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the Fashion Outlets of Las Vegas Loan
($71.1 million -- 6.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 375,700
SF outlet center located along Interstate 15 in Primm, Nevada. The
property is also encumbered with $32.0 million of mezzanine
financing. The property was built in 1998 and subsequently
renovated in 2004. Major tenants include Neiman Marcus Last Call,
Vanity Fair, Old Navy and Williams Sonoma. As of December 2013,
the property was 97% leased, the same as at last review. Moody's
LTV and stressed DSCR are 88% and 1.17X, respectively, compared to
89% and 1.15X at the last review.


COMM 2013-300P: Fitch Affirms 'BB+sf' Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed all rated classes of COMM 2013-300P
Mortgage Trust (COMM 2013-300P).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmation of COMM 2013-300P is based on the stable
performance of the underlying trust asset since issuance.  The
loan is interest-only for the entire 10-year term.

300 Park Avenue is a 25-story, 771,634 square foot building
located along a full blockfront of Park Avenue between 49th and
50th streets in Manhattan, within the Grand Central/Plaza District
submarket.  The three largest tenants are Colgate-Palmolive
(65.3%, 'AA-'/Stable Outlook by Fitch), Greenhill & Company
(13.6%) and GoldenTree (5.3%), with lease expirations in 2023,
2020 and 2018, respectively.  As of March 2014, the property's
occupancy has remained unchanged since issuance in July 2013 at
91.6%.

The loan has limited structural features; there is no structure in
place to mitigate the Colgate-Palmolive lease expiration, which is
within two months of the loan maturity.  However, Colgate-
Palmolive has demonstrated a commitment to the subject property
through long-term occupancy of 60 years, a 2008 early lease
renewal for 15 years and recent ongoing investments in their
space.  Additionally, Colgate-Palmolive's lease contains two
renewal options (one 10-year and one five-year) each upon at least
24 months prior notice.

RATINGS SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable.  No rating
actions are expected unless there are material changes to the
property occupancy and cash flow.  Additional information on
rating sensitivity is available in the report 'COMM 2013-300P
Mortgage Trust (Aug. 13, 2013).

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $222,000,000 class A1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $75,000,000 class A1P at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $297,000,000 class X-A* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $61,000,000 class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $42,000,000 class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $57,000,000 class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $28,000,000 class E at 'BB+sf'; Outlook Stable.

* notional and interest-only.


COMM 2014-FL4: S&P Assigns B Rating on 2 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to COMM
2014-FL4 Mortgage Trust's $441.0 million commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed
securities transaction backed by four floating-rate loans secured
by the fee interest in 15 limited-service and select-service
hotels called the Blackstone Select Service Portfolio, the fee
interest in the Hilton Portland & Executive Tower, the fee
interest in Sofitel Chicago Water Tower, and the fee and leasehold
interest in the Renaissance Aruba Resort & Casino in Oranjestad,
Aruba via a mirror loan structure.  The Renaissance Aruba Resort &
Casino loan is not pooled.

The ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral's historical and
projected performance, the sponsors' and managers' experience, the
trustee-provided liquidity, the loans' terms, and the
transaction's structure.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

COMM 2014-FL4 Mortgage Trust

Class            Rating            Amount ($)
A                AAA (sf)         106,622,000
X-CP             BBB- (sf)     213,800,000(i)
X-EXT            BBB- (sf)     213,800,000(i)
B                AA- (sf)          39,330,000
C                A- (sf)           29,237,000
D                BBB- (sf)         38,571,000
X-BX             BBB- (sf)      99,700,000(i)
X-HP             BBB- (sf)      57,300,000(i)
X-SOF            BBB- (sf)      56,800,000(i)
BX(ii)           BB- (sf)          26,300,000
HP1(ii)          BB- (sf)          16,500,000
HP2(ii)          B (sf)             6,200,000
SOF1(ii)         BB- (sf)          15,700,000
SOF2(ii)         B (sf)             7,500,000
AR1(ii)          NR                45,384,000
AR-X-CP(ii)      BBB- (sf)      90,000,000(i)
AR-X-EXT(ii)     BBB- (sf)      90,000,000(i)
AR2(ii)          NR                12,902,000
AR3(ii)          NR                 8,622,000
AR4(ii)          BBB- (sf)         23,092,000
AR5(ii)          NR                65,000,000

(i)Notional balance.
(ii)Loan-specific class.
NR--Not rated.


COMPASS RE: S&P Affirms 'BB-' Rating on 2 Note Classes
------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on five
natural-peril catastrophe bonds issued by three different issuers,
which had annual resets of the probability of attachment.  In each
case the probability of attachment was reset to a percentage
consistent with the transaction documents and the current rating.
In addition, S&P reviewed the creditworthiness of each ceding
company and the ratings on the collateral that, barring the
occurrence of a covered event, will be used to redeem the
principal on the redemption date.

RATINGS LIST

Ratings Affirmed

Compass Re Ltd.
Series 2011-I Class 1             BB-(sf)
Series 2011-I Class 2             BB-(sf)
Series 2011-I Class 3             B+(sf)

Embarcadero Re Ltd.
Series 2012-II Class A            BB+(sf)

Northshore Re Ltd.
Series 2013-I Class A             BB-(sf)


COPPER RIVER: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'
---------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1A, A-1B, A-2A, A-2B, B, C, D, and E notes from Copper River CLO
Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by
Guggenheim Investment Management LLC.  At the same time, S&P
removed all of the ratings from CreditWatch, where it placed them
with positive implications on June 18, 2014.

The transaction ended its reinvestment on Jan. 14, 2014, and the
principal proceeds are being used to amortize the notes.  The
senior notes in the transaction have a pro rata/sequential
structure and classes A-1 and A-2 are pari passu notes.  Classes
A-1A and A-1B are paid pro rata, but class A-2A is senior to class
A-2B, so it receives the class A-2B share of any principal
payments and the class A-2B notes will only receive principal
after the class A-2A notes are completely paid off.  Since the
April 2014 payment date the class A-1A and A-1B notes have each
paid down to about 70% of their original balance, while the class
A-2A notes have paid down to about 66.5%.  The paydowns to the
senior notes increased the credit support available for all the
rated notes.

In addition to the paydowns, the upgrades also reflect the
improved credit quality of the transaction's underlying assets
since our previous rating actions in November 2012.

According to the July 10, 2014, trustee report, the transaction
held $62.69 million in 'CCC' rated collateral, down from $76.74
million in the Oct. 11, 2012, trustee report, which S&P used for
its Nov. 2012 rating actions.  Furthermore, defaulted obligations
have decreased to $2.93 million from $4.27 million over the same
period.

During the transaction's reinvestment period it had Wachovia
Securities Inc.'s APEX revolver facility, a proprietary revolving
credit line, with a $35 million limit.  The facility provided for
the reimbursement of principal losses in connection with credit
defaults and credit-impaired sales.  The transaction had not drawn
upon the APEX revolver facility until the end of the reinvestment
period, after which the APEX facility limit remains at zero.

Standard & Poor's will continue to review whether, in its view,
the ratings on 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

Copper River CLO Ltd.
                           Cash flow
       Previous            implied     Cash flow   Final
Class  rating              rating      cushion(i)  rating
A-1A   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    6.26%       AAA (sf)
A-1B   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    6.26%       AAA (sf)
A-2A   AA (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    15.94%      AAA (sf)
A-2B   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    6.26%       AAA (sf)
B      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos  AA+ (sf)    9.84%       AA+ (sf)
C      BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos  A+ (sf)     7.30%       A+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)   3.58%       BBB+ (sf)
E      B (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)    2.58%       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.

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-1A   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-1B   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2A   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2B   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)  AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)   A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf) BBB+ (sf     BBB+ (sf)  BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)    BB- (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-1A   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1B   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2A   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2B   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA- (sf)      AA+ (sf)
C      A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)     A+ (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf       BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)     BB (sf)       B- (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Copper River CLO Ltd.
Class          Rating
          To            From
A-1A      AAA (sf)      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1B      AAA (sf)      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2A      AAA (sf)      AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2B      AAA (sf)      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B         AA+ (sf)      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
C         A+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D         BBB+ (sf)     B+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E         BB+ (sf)      B (sf)/Watch Pos

TRANSACTION INFORMATION

Issuer:             Copper River CLO Ltd.
Coissuer:           Copper River CLO LLC
Collateral manager: Guggenheim Investment Management LLC
Underwriter:        Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Trustee:            Bank of America N.A.
Transaction type:   Cash flow CLO

CLO-collateralized loan obligation.


CREDIT SUISSE 2005-C5: Fitch Lowers Ratings on 2 Tranches
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded two and affirmed 20 classes of Credit
Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. series 2005-C5,
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrades reflect a greater certainty of losses to the
already distressed classes.  The revisions in Rating Outlooks
reflect increased loss expectations for the overall pool,
incorporating expected paydown from defeasance and maturing loans.
Fitch modeled losses of 6% of the remaining pool; expected losses
on the original pool balance total 7.5%, including $89.9 million
(3.1% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date.
Fitch has designated 53 loans (17.4% of the pool) as Fitch Loans
of Concern, which includes seven specially serviced assets (4.5%
of the pool).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 26.7% to $2.15 billion from
$2.94 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, 31 loans
(23.8% of the pool) are defeased, including the largest loan in
the pool.  Maturities are concentrated in 2015 at 90.7% of the
remaining pool, including the defeased loans.  Interest shortfalls
are currently affecting classes K through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses is a specially serviced
loan (1.8% of the pool) secured by two office properties totaling
313,847 square feet (sf), each of which is located in Phoenix, AZ.
The loan transferred to special servicing effective March 2013 due
to monetary default and foreclosure took place in September 2013.
Per the May 2014 rent roll, total occupancy has declined to 72%,
which is roughly in-line with the Phoenix office market.  Per the
special servicer, one of the two properties has been listed for
sale and is nearing the end of the bid process with a final sale
anticipated this quarter.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is a specially
serviced loan (1.3% of the pool) secured by a 1,747,418 sf
regional mall (537,716 sf collateral) originally built in 1954 and
located in Southfield, MI (Detroit MSA).  The loan transferred to
special servicing in May 2014 due to imminent default.  JC Penney
(283,534 sf) and National Wholesale Liquidators (117,750 sf) both
vacated several years ago and the borrower has had difficulty re-
leasing the spaces.  Currently there is insufficient cash flow to
pay operating expenses and make capital repairs; the loan remains
current as of the July 2014 distribution date.  The reported debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) for year-end (YE) 2013 was 0.73x,
down from 1.46x at YE 2012.  The Mall occupancy was 49% as of
April 2014.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is secured by a
308,353 sf retail center located in Littleton, CO, approximately
10 miles southwest of Denver (1.9% of the pool).  Occupancy
previously declined in fourth quarter 2011 as a result of Stein
Mart vacating (11% of gross leasable area [GLA]).  As of YE 2013,
occupancy and DSCR were 80% and 0.94x, respectively, which
represents a continued decline in performance from YE 2012.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings for classes A-4 through B are expected to remain
stable as credit enhancement is expected to continue to increase
due to paydown from the defeased loans and those paying off at
maturity in 2015.  Rating Outlooks on classes C through F are
Negative; should loss expectation on the specially serviced loans
increase or performance deteriorate further on some of the already
underperforming assets including several regional malls, these
classes may be subject to downgrades.  The distressed classes
(those rated below 'B') are expected to be subject to further
downgrades as losses are realized.

Fitch downgrades the following classes as indicated:

   -- $21.8 million class H to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf', RE 0%;

   -- $32.6 million class J to 'Csf' from 'CCsf', RE 0%.

Fitch affirms the following classes and revises Outlooks as
indicated:

   -- $923.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $416.6 million class A-1-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $290.2 million class A-M at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $224.8 million class A-J at 'AAsf', Outlook to Stable from
      Negative;

   -- $24.9 million class B at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $47.6 million class C at 'BBBsf', Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;

   -- $21.8 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;

   -- $18.1 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;

   -- $29 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook to Negative from
      Stable;


   -- $36.3 million class G at 'CCCsf', RE 20%;

   -- $32.6 million class K at 'Csf', RE 0%;

   -- $723,653 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%;

   -- $5 million class 375-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $8.7 million class 375-B at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

   -- $19.5 million class 375-C at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable.


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


DEL MAR CLO I: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
C and D notes from Del Mar CLO I Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation transaction, and removed them from CreditWatch with
positive implications, where S&P had placed them on June 18, 2014.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the other five
classes of notes.

The transaction is currently in the amortization period since its
reinvestment period ended in July 2011.  The upgrades reflect the
$13.37 million, $44,583, and $32.14 million respective partial
paydowns to the class A-1, A-2, and A-3 notes since S&P's Nov.
2013 rating actions, which increased each class'
overcollateralization (O/C) ratio.  The class A-1, A-2, and A-3
notes are now at only 0.34% of their respective original balances.

The affirmations reflect sufficient credit support available to
the notes at their current rating levels.

The rating actions on the class D and E notes were limited by the
application of the largest obligor test, a supplemental stress
test S&P introduced as part of its corporate collateralized debt
obligation criteria update, which is intended to address potential
exposure concentration to obligors in the transaction's portfolio.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON

Del Mar CLO I Ltd

                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied     Cash flow    Final
Class   rating                rating      cushion (i)  Rating
A-1     AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    30.63%       AAA (sf)
A-2     AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    30.63%       AAA (sf)
A-3     AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    30.63%       AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    30.63%       AAA (sf)
C       AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    27.52%       AAA (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)    8.52%        A+ (sf)
E       B+ (sf)               BBB- (sf)   3.10%        B+ (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.

Class                         October 2013   July 2014
Notional balance (mil.$)
A-1                           13.63          0.26
A-2                           0.04           0.0009
A-3                           32.76          0.62
B                             23.63          23.63
C                             15.58          15.58
D                             15.05          15.05
E                             12.02          12.02

Coverage tests (%)
A/B O/C                             155.3               243.8
C O/C                               132.6               170.1
D O/C                               116.1               131.7
E O/C                               105.7               111.5
WAS (%)                             3.20                3.30

O/C--Overcollateralization test.
WAS--Weighted average spread.

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.

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

                    Recovery   Corr.       Corr.
        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       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
D       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)
E       BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   B+ (sf)

Corr.--Correlation.

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       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
D       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)      AA- (sf)     A+ (sf)
E       BBB- (sf)   BBB- (sf)     B+ (sf)      B+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Del Mar CLO I Ltd.
                     Rating     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A-1     245100AA0    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2     245100AF9    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-3     245100AG7    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B       245100AB8    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
C       245100AC6    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D       245100AD4    A+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E       245100AE2    B+ (sf)    B+ (sf)


DUANE STREET IV: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to BB+
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raises its ratings on the class
A-1R, A-1T, B, C, D, and E notes from Duane Street CLO IV Ltd. and
removed them from CreditWatch, where S&P placed them with positive
implications on June 18, 2014.  Duane Street CLO IV Ltd. is a
collateralized loan obligation transaction that closed in Aug.
2007.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Nov. 2013.  The
upgrades reflect the increased credit support following paydowns
of $20.91 million and $57.51 million to the class A-1R and A-1T
notes, respectively, which have helped reduce their remaining
balances to 83.22% of their original balances.

According to the June 2014 trustee report, the transaction has
$21.69 million in defaulted obligations, up from the $10.80
million noted in the May 2013 trustee report, which S&P used for
its June 2013 rating actions.

The amount of 'CCC' rated collateral held in the transaction's
asset portfolio dropped since S&P's last rating actions.
According to the June 2014 trustee report, the transaction held
$30.50 million in assets rated in the 'CCC' range, down from the
$45.44 million noted in the May 2013 trustee report.

In addition, the upgrades also reflect an improvement in the
overcollateralization (O/C) available to support the senior
tranches, primarily due to the aforementioned paydowns.  However,
the O/C of the junior tranches declined due to an increase in
defaults.  The trustee reported the following O/C ratios in the
June 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A-1R O/C ratio was 136.51%, up from 134.02% in May
      2013.

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 126.39%, up from 124.51% in May
      2013.

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 117.12%, down from 117.37% in May
      2013.

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 110.06%, down from 111.14% in May
      2013.

   -- The class E O/C ratio was 106.39%, down from 107.87% in May
      2013.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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

Duane Street CLO IV Ltd.

                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied     Cash flow    Final
Class   rating                rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1T    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    2.61%        AAA (sf)
A-1R    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    2.61%        AAA (sf)
B       AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    9.69%        AA+ (sf)
C       A- (sf)/Watch Pos     AA- (sf)    2.41%        AA- (sf)
D       BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)   7.12%        BBB+ (sf)
E       BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)    7.44%        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.

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    Corr.       Corr.
        Cash flow   decrease    increase    decrease
        implied     implied     implied     implied      Final
Class   rating      rating      rating      rating       rating
A-1T    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1R    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)
C       AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)     A+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)     AA- (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   A (sf)       BBB+ (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)    BBB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)

Corr.-Correlation.

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-1T     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1R     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)
B        AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      A+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)
C        AA- (sf)     A+ (sf)       BBB (sf)     AA- (sf)
D        BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)     B+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
E        BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      CCC (sf)     BB+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Duane Street CLO IV Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1T    26358EAA0    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1R    26358EAB8    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B       26358EAC6    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
C       26358EAD4    AA- (sf)    A- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       26358EAE2    BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
E       26358EAF9    BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)/Watch Pos


FAIRWAY LOAN: S&P Raises Rating on Class B-2L Notes to 'B-'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-3L, B-1L, and B-2L notes from Fairway Loan Funding Co. and
removed them from CreditWatch, where they were placed with
positive implications on June 18, 2014.  At the same time, S&P
affirmed its ratings on the class A-2L and C-6 notes.  Fairway
Loan Funding Co. is a collateralized loan obligation transaction
that closed in Aug. 2006 and is managed by Pacific Investment
Management Co. LLC.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Oct. 2012.  Since
S&P's Dec. 2013 rating actions, the class A-L and A-1LV notes have
combined to pay down their remaining outstanding balances of
$153.5 million and $2.8 million, respectively.  Following the
complete paydown of the class A-1L and A-1lV notes, the class A-2L
notes received $31.0 million in principal paydowns in the most
recent July 2014 payment date.  The rating actions reflect the
paydowns to the class A-1L, A-1LV, and A-2L notes, which helped
create additional support for the subordinate notes.  The
improvements are also evident in the increased class A, B-1L, and
B-2L overcollateralization ratios since S&P's Dec. 2013 rating
actions.

S&P's ratings on the class B-1L and B-2L notes were affected by
the application of its largest-obligor default test, which
addresses event and model risks that might be present in rated
transactions.  The class B-1L notes failed the largest-obligor
default test at the 'A' rating level.  The class B-2L notes failed
the largest-obligor default test at the 'B' rating level, but the
final ratings consider the cash flow results that suggest higher
ratings and the transaction's improvements since S&P's last rating
actions.

The class C-6 notes are backed by a U.S. Treasury principal strip.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Fairway Loan Funding Co.

                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied    Cash flow    Final
Class   rating                rating     cushion(i)   rating
A-2L    AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)   31.45%       AAA (sf)
A-3L    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)   31.45%       AAA (sf)
B-1L    BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)   5.96%        A+ (sf)
B-2L    CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos   A- (sf)    1.12%        B- (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    Corr.       Corr.
        Cash flow   decrease    increase    decrease
        implied     implied     implied     implied      Final
Class   rating      rating      rating      rating       rating
A-2L    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-3L    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B-1L    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     A+ (sf)
B-2L    A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   A (sf)       B- (sf)

Corr.-Correlation.

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-2L     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-3L     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B-1L     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)     A+ (sf)
B-2L     A- (sf)     A- (sf)       BB+ (sf)     B- (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Fairway Loan Funding Co.

                            Rating
Class        Identifier     To             From
A-2L         30605KAD3      AAA (sf)       AAA (sf)
A-3L         30605KAE1      AAA (sf)       AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L         30605KAF8      A+ (sf)        BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2L         30605LAA7      B- (sf)        CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C-6 income   US30605LAQ23   AA+p (sf)(i)   AA+p (sf)(i)

(i) The 'p' subscript indicates that the rating addresses only the
    principal portion of the obligation.


GALAXY XVIII: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on 2 Note Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Galaxy
XVIII CLO Ltd./Galaxy XVIII CLO LLC's $423 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 ratings reflect S&P's assessment 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 (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 transaction's ability to make timely interest and
      ultimate principal payments on the 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
      0.2600%-13.8391%.

   -- 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 interest diversion test, a failure of
      which will lead to the reclassification of some of the
      excess interest proceeds that are available before paying
      uncapped administrative expenses and hedge payments,
      subordinated and incentive management fees, and subordinated
      note payments as principal proceeds to purchase additional
      collateral assets during the reinvestment period.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

Galaxy XVIII CLO Ltd./Galaxy XVIII CLO LLC

Class                   Rating               Amount
                                            (mil. $)
A                       AAA (sf)             280.35
B                       AA (sf)               55.80
C-1 (deferrable)        A (sf)                31.60
C-2 (deferrable)        A (sf)                 3.00
D-1 (deferrable)        BBB (sf)              20.90
D-2 (deferrable)        BBB (sf)               3.00
E-1 (deferrable)        BB (sf)               14.35
E-2 (deferrable)        BB (sf)                5.00
F (deferrable)          B (sf)                 9.00
Subordinated notes      NR                    42.90

NR--Not rated.


GOLDMAN SACHS 2010-C2: Fitch Affirms BB Rating on Class E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed eight classes of Goldman Sachs
Commercial Mortgage Capital, L.P. commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2010-C2.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the generally stable performance of
the underlying collateral pool since issuance. There are currently
43 loans collateralized by 108 properties and there are no
delinquent or specially serviced loans. Fitch reviewed servicer-
reported year-end (YE) 2013 financial performance for the
collateral pool in addition to updated rent rolls for the top 15
loans, which represent 65.6% of the transaction. Of the pool,
30.2% matures in 2015, including three of the top 15 loans
(11.3%).

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 3.8% to $843.5 million from
$876.5 million at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, two loans
(3.3% of the pool) are defeased.

The largest loan in the pool (10.4% of the pool balance) is
secured by a 399,935 square foot (sf) class B office property in
the Financial District of Manhattan, NY. The property is 100%
occupied by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) under a long-
term lease which expires in August 2034. UFT also holds a 9.9%
ownership interest in the building. The loan is structured with a
letter of credit (LOC), which can be drawn upon to cover debt
service shortfalls. The loan is also structured with a four-year
interest-only term followed by a 30-year amortization period. The
servicer-reported YE 2013 debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) was
2.50x, compared to 2.24x at YE 2012.

The second largest loan (7.4%) is secured by two office properties
totaling 1.15 million sf in downtown Cleveland, OH. One Cleveland
Center is a 34-story building with tenants that include Roetzel &
Andress, Vorys Sater Seymour Pease, and Bank of America. The other
property is Penton Media Building, which is a 20-story building
with tenants that include Penton Media, PR Newswire Associates and
National Union Fire Insurance. The portfolio has experienced
occupancy decline since issuance. The combined occupancy for the
two properties at YE 2013 was 69% compared to 76% at YE 2012 and
79% at issuance. The DSCR has also declined as a result of
occupancy and increased expenses. For YE 2013, the DSCR was
reported at 1.63x compared to 1.79x at YE 2012. The loan matures
in 2015.

The third largest loan (7.0%) is secured by a 669,682 sf mixed-use
office retail property located in Pittsburgh, PA. The property is
considered an area landmark and tourist destination. It consists
of five buildings that house office space, retail shops,
restaurants, commuter parking and also includes marina slips and
an outdoor amphitheater. As of YE 2013, the property was 80%
occupied, compared to 85% at YE 2012. The servicer-reported YE
2013 DSCR was 1.90x, compared to 1.70x at YE 2012.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook on class B has been revised to Positive from
Stable due to the expected paydown and increased credit
enhancement from loans with 2015 maturities. Rating Outlooks on
classes A-1, A-2 and C though F remain Stable as the majority of
the pool has maintained performance consistent with that at
issuance. Downgrades are considered unlikely, but are possible
should loans not pay off at maturity or if they show significant
performance declines.

Fitch affirms the following class but revises the Rating Outlook
as indicated:

   -- $26.3 million class B at 'AAsf', Outlook to Positive from
      Stable.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $314.1 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $376.1 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- Interest-Only class X-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $29.6 million class C at 'Asf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $47.1 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $12.1 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $9.9 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the interest-only class X-B or and class G
certificates.


GOLDMAN SACHS 2011-GC5: Fitch Affirms 'B' Rating on Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 11 classes of Goldman Sachs Commercial
Mortgage Capital, L.P., series 2011-GC5 commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect the stable performance of the underlying
pool.  As of the August 2014 distribution date, the pool's
aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 3.2% to $1.69
billion from $1.75 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer
reporting, three loans (4.1% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest
shortfalls are currently affecting class G.  Fitch has designated
four loans (2.3%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes one
specially serviced asset (0.9%).

The specially-serviced asset (0.9% of the pool) is secured by a
236,134 square foot (sf) office complex comprising six, single-
story buildings located in North Richland Hills, TX.  The loan
transferred to special servicing in April 2013 due to imminent
default following an occupancy decline.  The occupancy decline
occurred when the largest tenant vacated the property in early
February 2013 without providing notice.  In addition, the
property's second largest tenant reduced their leased space by
10.3% upon their renewal date.  The asset became real estate owned
(REO) in July 2013 through a non-judicial foreclosure.  As per the
property's May 2013 rent roll, the occupancy was reported at
32.5%.

The largest loan of the pool (11.3%) is secured by 478,028 square
feet (sf) of in-line and major tenant retail space within a 1.1
million-sf regional mall in Tucson, AZ.  The property is anchored
by Sears, Dillard's, Macy's and Century Theaters, which is the
only anchor that is part of the collateral.  The servicer-reported
debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) was 1.64x at year-end (YE) 2013
compared to 1.50x at YE 2012.  Occupancy has dropped slightly to
95% as of YE 2013 compared to 99% at YE 2012.

The second largest loan of the pool (10.7%) is secured by a three-
story, 25,600-sf single-tenant retail property located in Times
Square in Manhattan.  The property was constructed in 2008 and has
been 100% occupied by American Eagle Outfitters since completion.
It also includes a 250-foot (14,504 sf) rentable LED signage
tower.  The servicer-reported DSCR was 1.75x at YE 2013 compared
to 1.71x at YE 2012.

RATING SENSITIVITY

Rating Outlooks on classes A-1 through F remain Stable due to the
relatively stable performance of the pool since issuance and
continued paydown.  No rating changes are expected unless there is
material performance deterioration or additional loans become
specially serviced.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $34.1 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $476.6 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $86.4 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $568.2 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $181.1 million class A-S at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $96 million class B at 'AA-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $69.8 million class C at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $74.2 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $28.4 million class E at 'BBsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $24 million class F at 'Bsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $1.36 billion* class X-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest only.

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


GRAMERCY REAL 2007-1: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 3 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings on the
following notes issued by Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2007-1 Ltd.:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed B3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed B3
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on May 21, 2014 Upgraded to
B2 (sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. B-FL, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Cl. B-FX, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Sep 18, 2013 Affirmed
Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Moody's has affirmed the ratings of on the transaction because key
transaction metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings.
The rating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance
of commercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO
and Re-REMIC) transactions.

Gramercy Real Estate CDO 2007-1 is a cash CRE CDO transaction,
whose reinvestment period ended in August 2012. The transaction is
backed by a portfolio of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities
(CMBS) (81.2% of the pool balance); ii) mezzanine interests
(9.4%); iii) whole loans and senior participations (9.0%); and iv)
B-notes (0.4%). As of the June 30, 2014 trustee report, the
aggregate note balance of the transaction, including income notes,
has decreased to $981.4 million from $1.1 billion at issuance, as
a result of the principal paydown directed to the senior most
outstanding class of notes. The paydown was the result of the
combination of regular amortization, resolution and sales of
defaulted collateral, and the failing of certain par value tests.
The Class A-2 notes are fully supported by MBIA Insurance
Corporation which provides a guarantee on the scheduled payment of
interest and principal.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of the
expected loss in CRE CDO transactions: the weighted average rating
factor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weighted
average recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).
Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for static
deals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.
Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does not
rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 4599,
compared to 4047 at last review. The current ratings on the
Moody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody's
rated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 and 2.0% compared to 0.5% at last
review; A1-A3 and 0.3% compare to 3.8% at last review; Baa1-Baa3
and 6.6% compared to 6.9% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and 1.0%
compared to 2.0% at last review; B1-B3 and 35.4% compared to 38.7%
at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 54.7% compared to 48.1% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.7 years, compared to 3.5 years at last
review. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on the
underlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 9.8%, compared to 17.7% at last
review.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 100.0%, compared to 0.0% at last review.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs" published in March 2014.

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

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty, because it
is sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, which
in turn depends on economic and credit conditions that are subject
to change. The servicing decisions of the master and special
servicer and surveillance by the operating advisor with respect to
the collateral interests and oversight of the transaction will
also affect the performance of the rated notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of the
key parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,
although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offset
by a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.
The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes in the
recovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.
Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery
rate to zero on 100% of the collateral pool would result in a
modeled rating movement on the rated notes of zero to one notch
downward (e.g. one notch down implies a rating movement from Baa3
to Ba1). Increasing the recovery rate by 10% on 100% of the
collateral pool would result in modeled rating movement on the
rated notes of zero notches upward (e.g. one notch up implies a
rating movement from Ba1 to Baa3).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are the
extent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given
the weak recovery and commercial real estate property markets.
Commercial real estate property values continue to improve
modestly, along with a rise in investment activity and
stabilization in core property type performance. Limited new
construction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.
However, sustained growth will not be possible until investment
increases steadily for a significant period, non-performing
properties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro area
recession abate.


GS MORTGAGE 2014-GSFL: S&P Assigns 'BB-' Rating on 3 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to GS
Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GSFL's $542.8 million commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2014-GSFL.

The certificate issuance is backed by eight commercial mortgage
loans with a $542.8 million aggregate principal balance, secured
by the fee and/or leasehold interests in 59 properties across 17
U.S. states.

Since S&P issued its preliminary ratings on the transaction on
July 29, 2014, the issuer has decided to split the certificate
balance of the class E (preliminary rating of 'BB- (sf)') into
two.  The more senior portion now represents the new class E
certificates, which S&P rates 'BB (sf)', and the more junior
portion is now the newly created class F, which S&P rates
'BB-(sf)'.  The total debt stack remains unchanged.

The ratings are based on information as of Aug. 15, 2014.

The 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.

RATINGS ASSIGNED

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GSFL

Class            Rating(i)              Amount ($)
A                AAA (sf)              276,138,000
X-CP             BB- (sf)              542,769,616(ii)
X-EXT            BB- (sf)              542,769,616(ii)
B                AA- (sf)               67,847,000
C                A- (sf)                48,147,000
D                BBB- (sf)              64,480,000
E                BB (sf)                60,000,000
F                BB- (sf)               26,157,616

  (i) The certificates will be issued to qualified institutional
      buyers according to Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(ii) Notional balance.  The notional amount of the class X-CP and
      X-EXT certificates will equal the sum of the class A through
      F certificates' principal amounts.


JFIN REVOLVER 2014: S&P Assigns 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to JFIN
Revolver CLO 2014 Ltd./JFIN Revolver CLO 2014 LLC's $414 million
floating-rate notes.

The notes issuance is a collateralized loan obligation (CLO)
transaction backed by a revolving pool consisting primarily of
revolver and delayed-drawdown loans.

The ratings reflect S&P's assessment 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
      (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 credit enhancement, which is necessary to
      support the unfunded portion of the revolver and delayed-
      draw collateral debt securities.

   -- 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 revolver and delayed-draw corporate loans.

   -- The asset manager's experienced management team.

   -- The transaction's ability to make timely interest and
      ultimate principal payments on the 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
      0.2386%-13.8385%.

   -- The transaction's overcollateralization 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

JFIN Revolver CLO 2014 Ltd./JFIN Revolver CLO 2014 LLC

Class                   Rating          Amount
                                      (mil. $)
A-1                     AAA (sf)        140.00
A-2                     AAA (sf)        116.00
B                       AA (sf)          67.00
C (deferrable)          A (sf)           42.00
D (deferrable)          BBB (sf)         26.00
E (deferrable)          BB (sf)          23.00
Subordinated notes      NR              107.00

NR-Not rated


JP MORGAN 2014-C22: Fitch Assigns 'BB-sf' Rating on Cl. E Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following ratings and Rating
Outlooks to the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust, Series 2014-C22 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates.

   -- $47,120,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $29,158,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $175,000,000 class A-3A1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $75,000,000c class A-3A2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $355,389,000 class A-4 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $102,553,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $78,422,000b class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $862,642,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $58,816,000b class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $47,614,000b class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $184,852,000b class EC 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $61,617,000c class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $28,008,000c class E 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $28,008,000ac class X-C 'BB-sf'; Outlook Stable.

(a) Notional amount and interest only.
(b) Class A-S, class B, and class C certificates may be exchanged
    for a related amount of class EC certificates, and class EC
    certificates may be exchanged for class A-S, class B, and
    class C certificates.
(c) Privately placed pursuant to Rule 144A.

Fitch does not rate the $12,604,000 class F, the $14,003,000 class
G, the $26,607,000 interest-only class X-D, the $35,010,270
interest-only class X-E, and the $35,010,270 class NR.  Fitch does
not rate the $15,099,000 class UHP, which will only receive
distributions from, and will only incur losses with respect to,
the Trust Companion Loan related to the U-Haul Self Storage Whole
Loan.

The class A-3A1 balance increased to $175,000,000 from
$162,500,000 and the class A-3A2 balance decreased to $75,000,000
from $87,500,000 since Fitch published its presale report.
Additionally, the class X-B was withdrawn because it was removed
from the transaction structure.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 76 loans secured by 120 commercial
properties having an aggregate principal balance of approximately
$1.20 billion as of the cutoff date.  The loans were contributed
to the trust by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association;
Barclays Bank PLC; Starwood Mortgage Funding II LLC; and General
Electric Capital Corporation.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 74.6% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis on 82%, and asset summary reviews
on 82% of the pool.

The transaction has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) of 1.11x, a Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) of 110.8%,
and a Fitch debt yield of 8.6%.  Fitch's aggregate net cash flow
represents a variance of 9% to issuer cash flows.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Higher Leverage than Recent Transactions: The pool's Fitch DSCR
and LTV are 1.11x and 110.8%, respectively, which is worse than
the first-half 2014 and 2013 averages of 1.19x and 105.6% and
1.29x and 101.6%, respectively.

Lower Loan Concentration: Loan concentration is lower than that of
other recent transactions.  The largest loan represents 8% of the
pool, and the top 10 loans represent 47.3%.  The average top 10
concentrations for first-half 2014 and 2013 conduit transactions
were 52.5% and 54.5%, respectively.

Limited Amortization: 12.9% of the pool is full-term interest-
only, 59.2% of the pool is partial-term interest-only, and 3.4% of
the pool is fully amortizing.  The remainder of the pool (31
loans, 24.5%) consists of amortizing balloon loans with loan terms
of five to 10 years.  Based on the scheduled balance at maturity,
the pool will have paid down 14.9%.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 8.8% below
the most recent net operating income (NOI; for properties for
which a recent NOI was provided, excluding properties that were
stabilizing during this period).  Unanticipated further declines
in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults and loss
severities on defaulted loans, and could result in potential
rating actions on the certificates.  Fitch evaluated the
sensitivity of the ratings assigned to JPMBB 2014-C22 certificates
and found that the transaction displays average sensitivity to
further declines in NCF.  In a scenario in which NCF declined a
further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf'
certificates to 'BBB+sf' could result.  In a more severe scenario,
in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade
of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBB-sf' could result.

The master servicer will be Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, rated 'CMS1-' by Fitch.  The special servicer will be
LNR Partners, LLC., rated 'CSS1-' by Fitch.


KATONAH IX: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class B-2L Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2L, A-3L, and B-1L notes from Katonah IX CLO Ltd. and removed
them from CreditWatch, where S&P placed them with positive
implications on June 18, 2014.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its
ratings on the class A-1L, A-1LV, and B-2L notes.  Katonah IX CLO
Ltd. is a collateralized loan obligation transaction that closed
in Nov. 2006.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Jan., and S&P
raised its ratings on the class A-1L, A-1LV, A-2L, and A-3L notes
in Dec. 2013 after the deal started to amortize.  Since S&P's
Dec. 2013 rating actions, the class A-L and A-1LV notes have
combined to pay down $80.5 million, reducing their remaining
balance to less than 30% of their original balance.

The upgrades and affirmations reflect the paydowns to the class A-
1L and A-1LV notes, which helped create additional support for the
subordinate notes.  The improvements are also evident in the
increased class A-3L, B-1L, and B-2L par value ratios since S&P's
December 2013 rating actions.

S&P's ratings on the class B-2L notes were affected by the
application of its largest-obligor default test, which addresses
event and model risks that might be present in rated transactions.
The class B-2L notes failed the largest-obligor default test at
the 'B' rating level, but S&P's final ratings consider the cash
flow results that suggest a higher rating.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Katonah IX CLO Ltd.

                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied     Cash flow    Final
Class   rating                rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1L    AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    37.75%       AAA (sf)
A-1LV   AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    37.75%       AAA (sf)
A-2L    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    14.58%       AAA (sf)
A-3L    A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     AA+ (sf)    3.41%        AA+ (sf)
B-1L    BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)   5.50%        BBB+ (sf)
B-2L    B+ (sf)               B+ (sf)     1.24%        B+ (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.

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    Corr.       Corr.
        Cash flow   decrease    increase    decrease
        implied     implied     implied     implied    Final
Class   rating      rating      rating      rating     rating
A-1L    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-1LV   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-2L    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-3L    AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)
B-1L    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   A- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)
B-2L    B+ (sf)     B- (sf)     B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)    B+ (sf)

Corr.-Correlation.

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-1L Notes    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-1LV Notes   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-2L Notes    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-3L Notes    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)      A- (sf)      AA+ (sf)
B-1L Notes    BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)     B (sf)       BBB+ (sf)
B-2L Notes    B+ (sf)     B- (sf)       CC (sf)      B+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Katonah IX CLO Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1L    486011AA7    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1LV   486011AB5    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2L    486011AC3    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3L    486011AD1    AA+ (sf)    A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1L    486011AE9    BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2L    486010AA9    B+ (sf)     B+ (sf)


KINDER MORGAN 2002-6: S&P Puts 'BB' Rating on CreditWatch Positive
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its 'BB' rating on
Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Kinder Morgan Debenture-Backed
Series 2002-6's US$10.574 million corporate-backed trust
certificates series 2002-6 on CreditWatch with positive
implications.

S&P's rating on the certificates is dependent on its rating on the
underlying security, Kinder Morgan Inc.'s $150 million 7.45%
debentures due March 1, 2098 (BB/Watch Pos).

The rating action follows the Aug. 11, 2014, placement of S&P's
'BB' rating on the underlying security on CreditWatch positive.
S&P may take subsequent rating actions on this transaction due to
changes to its rating on the underlying security.


KVK CLO 2014-3: S&P Assigns Preliminary B Rating on Class F Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to KVK CLO 2014-3 Ltd./KVK CLO 2014-3 LLC's 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 Aug. 13,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- 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
      Rating Services' 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 0.2429%-12.8177%.

   -- 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 preliminary rated notes outstanding.

   -- The transaction's interest diversion 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, deferred
      subordinated collateral management fees, collateral manager
      incentive fees, and payments to the subordinated notes to
      principal proceeds for the purchase of additional collateral
      assets during the reinvestment period.

   -- The weighted average spread of the identified portfolio is
      below the minimum weighted average spread covenanted to in
      the transaction documents.  If the collateral manager cannot
      acquire portfolio collateral during the ramp-up period with
      characteristics in-line with the transaction's covenants,
      the break-even default rates may decrease and the cushion
      outlined in the preliminary ratings table -- the difference
      between the BDRs and the scenario default rates -- could be
      diminished.  If this difference becomes negative, S&P may
      not affirm the ratings on the effective date.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

KVK CLO 2014-3 Ltd./KVK CLO 2014-3 LLC

Class                 Rating                 Amount
                                           (mil. $)
A                     AAA (sf)               317.50
B                     AA (sf)                 60.00
C (deferrable)        A (sf)                  37.50
D (deferrable)        BBB (sf)                25.00
E (deferrable)        BB (sf)                 22.00
F (deferrable)        B (sf)                   9.00
Subordinated notes    NR                      45.00

NR-Not rated.


LB-UBS COMMERCIAL 2005-C2: Fitch Affirms D Ratings on 3 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded three classes and affirmed 12 classes
of LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust (LB-UBS) commercial mortgage
pass-through certificates series 2005-C2.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The downgrades are due to the increased certainty of losses to the
already distressed classes.  Fitch modeled losses of 17.3% of the
remaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total
11.5%, including $47.2 million (2.4% of the original pool balance)
in realized losses to date.  Fitch has designated 19 loans (37.2%)
as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes five specially serviced
assets (2.6%).  Fitch's three largest drivers of loss expectations
remain in line with the last rating action.  The loans have all
been modified into A/B note structures; in all cases, Fitch is
modeling some recovery on the A note and a full loss on the B
note.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A-4, A-AB, and A-5 remain Stable due to
sufficient credit enhancement, continued paydown and expected
payoff from defeasance.  The Negative Outlooks on classes A-J, B
and C reflect Fitch's concern over the underperformance of several
modified loans, in addition to concentration concerns of upcoming
loan maturities over the next 12 months.  Classes A-J, B and C may
be subject to negative rating actions should realized losses be
greater than Fitch's expectations.  Fitch will continue to monitor
the changing collateral as 77.3% of the pool is maturing the next
eight months.

As of the July 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 47.8% to $1.01 billion from
$1.94 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, 14 loans
(33.1% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes D through S.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the Woodbury Office
Portfolio II (14.6% of the pool) which is secured by 22 office
properties totaling 1.1 million square feet (sf) located in Long
Island, NY.  Occupancy has remained relatively flat over the past
12-months, reporting at 73% as of June 2014, compared to 75% in
March 2013.  Net operating income (NOI) however has declined due
to lower base rental revenues from renewed leases, with NOI debt
service coverage ratio (DSCR) reported at 0.80x for year to date
(YTD) March 2014, compared to 1.18x at year end (YE) 2013 and
1.24x at YE 2012.  The June 2014 rent roll reported $3.17 million
of rental abatements currently in-place as well as annual rent
steps for most of the leases.

The original $163.6 million loan had transferred to special
servicing in January 2010 for imminent default.  The loan was
modified in August 2011 while in special servicing.  Terms of the
modification included an extension to the original loan term and
bifurcation of the loan into a senior ($104.5 million) and junior
($51.4 million) interest-only component; the senior A-note has
since paid down to $96.4 million.  Any recovery to the subject B-
note is contingent upon full recovery to the A-note proceeds at
the loan's maturity in Dec. 2015.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is Park 80 West
(9.86%) which is secured by a two-building, 505,000 sf office
complex located in Saddle Brook, NJ.  The June 2014 rent roll
reported occupancy at 70%, compared to 72% in December 2013 and
72% in January 2012.  The NOI DSCR has declined 0.78x as of YE
December 2013 from 1.15x at YE 2012.  Part of the NOI decline is
due to a non-recurring $1.5 million real estate tax reimbursement
recorded in 2012.  In addition, the NOI decline is attributed to
significant lease renewals at reduced rents, as well as rent
concessions on renewed and newly signed leases.  Renewed leases
include New York Life (5.1% of the net rentable area [NRA]) which
further extended its lease to March 2024 after previously
extending to 2018 from 2012 at a reduced rate with rent
concessions; CB Richard Ellis (5.1% NRA) which extended its lease
to August 2024 from March 2014 at a reduced rate; and Assigned
Risk Solutions (fka JBA Associates; 5.2% NRA) which extended to
November 2019 from 2014 at a reduced rate.  The majority of leases
include rent steps.

The original $100 million loan transferred to special servicing in
December 2009 due to imminent default.  The loan was modified in
March 2012 while in special servicing.  Terms of the modification
included a bifurcation of the loan into a senior ($72 million) and
junior ($28 million) component.  Although losses are not expected
imminently, any recovery to the subject B-note is contingent upon
full recovery to the A-note proceeds at the loan's maturity in
February 2015.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Woodbury
Office Portfolio I (6.26%) which is secured by 10 office
properties containing approximately 480,000 sf, located in Long
Island, NY.  Occupancy declined to 74% as of March 2014 from 90%
in December 2013, after seeing steady increases from 81% in
December 2012 and 60% in March 2012.  As a result NOI has
significantly declined to 1.07x as of March 2014, after increasing
to 1.51x for YE 2013 from 0.92x for YE 2012.  The June 2014 rent
roll reported $2.2 million of rental abatements currently in-place
as well as annual rent steps for most of the leases.  The
portfolio is exposed to rollover risk with leases for
approximately 33% NRA scheduled to expire by December 2015.

The original $63.5 million loan had transferred to special
servicing in January 2010 when the borrower had requested a
modification of the loan terms, including an extension of the
April 2010 maturity date; the loan matured in April 2010 without
repayment.  The loan was modified in August 2011 while in special
servicing.  Terms of the modification included an extension to the
original loan term and bifurcation of the loan into a senior
($35.5 million) and junior ($28 million) component.  Although
losses are not expected imminently, any recovery to the subject B-
note is contingent upon full recovery to the A-note proceeds at
the loan's maturity in December 2015.

Fitch downgrades the following classes as indicated:

   -- $38.9 million class D to 'CCsf' from 'CCCsf'; RE 15%;
   -- $41.4 million class E to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $17 million class F to 'Csf' from 'CCsf'; RE 0%;

Fitch affirms the following classes:

   -- $193 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $9.1 million class A-AB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $470.7 million class A-5 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $121.7 million class A-J at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $13.9 million class B at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- $29.2 million class C at 'Bsf'; Outlook Negative.
   -- $17 million class G at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $17 million class H at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $29.2 million class J at 'Csf'; RE 0%;
   -- $16.1 million class K at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

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


LCM VI: S&P Affirms 'BB+' Rating on Class E Notes
-------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on class A,
B, C, and D notes from LCM VI Ltd., a U.S. collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) managed by LCM Asset Management LLC.  At the same
time, S&P affirmed its rating on the class E notes and removed its
rating on class A notes from CreditWatch, where S&P placed it with
positive implications on June 18, 2014.

The upgrades reflect paydowns from a $72 million special
redemption on the class A notes at the collateral manager's
discretion on the May 28, 2014, payment date, after which the
transaction entered its amortization period.  The affirmation on
class E reflects S&P's belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with the current 'BB+ (sf)' rating.

The transaction's overall overcollateralization (O/C) ratios have
benefited from the principal paydowns.  The trustee reported the
following O/C ratios in the June 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A/B O/C ratio was 126.45%, up from 121.80% in
      April 2012.

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 114.97%, up from 112.59% in April
      2012.

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 110.20%, up from 108.67% in April
      2012.

   -- The class E O/C ratio was 105.40%, up from 104.68% in April
      2012.

The underlying portfolio's credit quality has also improved over
the same period.  According to the June 2014 trustee report, the
transaction held $2.99 million in 'CCC' rated assets compared with
$9.32 million noted in the April 2012 trustee report, which S&P
referenced for its May 31, 2012, rating actions.

Standard & Poor's will continue to review whether, in its view,
the ratings 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

LCM VI Ltd.

                             Cash flow
        Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)   rating
A      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    9.04%        AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)             AAA (sf)    1.77%        AAA (sf)
C      A (sf)               AA (sf)     0.88%        AA (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)            A+ (sf)     1.52%        A (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)             BBB- (sf)   1.45%        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.

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      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B      AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)  AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C      AA (sf)    A+ (sf)   AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)
D      A+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf) A- (sf)     A+ (sf)     A (sf)
E      BBB- (sf)  BB+ (sf)  BB+ (sf)    BBB+ (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      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
C      AA (sf)      AA- (sf)      BBB+ (sf)     AA (sf)
D      A+ (sf)      A- (sf)       BB+ (sf)      A (sf)
E      BBB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)      B+ (sf)       BB+ (sf)

RATING AND CREDITWATCH ACTIONS

LCM VI Ltd.

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


LCM IX: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'
---------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D, and E notes from LCM IX L.P., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction managed by LCM Asset Management LLC.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on the class A notes.

LCM IX L.P. ended its reinvestment period in July 2014.  S&P
expects that principal proceeds will be used to pay down the notes
from the payment date in October 2014.

The transaction has seen steady performance since the effective
date.  As of the trustee report dated July 2, 2014, the
transaction held no defaulted assets or long-dated assets.
Additionally, per the same trustee report, the transaction had
only one asset in the 'CCC' rating category, constituting about
0.3% of the total collateral pool.

The overcollateralization (O/C) available to support the notes is
significantly higher than the trigger values, as reflected in the
O/C ratios reported by the trustee in the July 2, 2014, monthly
report:

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 132.99%, compared with a trigger
      of 122.45%;
   -- The class C O/C ratio was 119.92%, compared with a trigger
      of 111.93%;
   -- The class D O/C ratio was 113.16%, compared with a trigger
      of 106.70%; and
   -- The class E O/C ratio was 108.28%, compared with a trigger
      of 103.84%.

The affirmation of the class A notes reflects the availability of
credit support at the current 'AAA (sf)' rating level.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

LCM IX L.P.
                       Cash flow
       Previous        implied     Cash flow       Final
Class  rating          rating      cushion (%)(i)  rating
A      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)    11.75           AAA (sf)
B      AA (sf)         AA+ (sf)    16.19           AA+ (sf)
C      A (sf)          AA- (sf)    1.93            AA- (sf)
D      BBB (sf)        BBB+ (sf)   6.31            BBB+ (sf)
E      BB (sf)         BB+ (sf)    3.44            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.

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      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)
C      AA- (sf)   A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)      AA- (sf)   AA- (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)  BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)  BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)   BB- (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      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)
C      AA- (sf)     A+ (sf)       BBB+ (sf)     AA- (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)     BB (sf)       B- (sf)       BB+ (sf)

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

RATINGS RAISED

LCM IX L.P.
               Rating
Class     To           From
B         AA+ (sf)     AA (sf)
C         AA- (sf)     A (sf)
D         BBB+ (sf)    BBB (sf)
E         BB+ (sf)     BB (sf)

RATING AFFIRMED

LCM IX L.P.

Class     Rating
A         AAA (sf)

TRANSACTION INFORMATION

Issuer:             LCM IX L.P.
Co-issuer:          LCM IX LLC
Collateral manager: LCM Asset Management LLC
Trustee:            Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
Transaction type:   Cash flow CLO


LCM XVII: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to LCM XVII L.P./LCM XVII LLC's $368.00 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 Aug. 22,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- 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 0.2281%-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

LCM XVII L.P./LCM XVII LLC

Class                   Rating                  Amount
                                              (mil. $)
A                       AAA (sf)                255.00
B-1                     AA (sf)                  29.00
B-2                     AA (sf)                  24.00
C (deferrable)          A (sf)                   22.00
D (deferrable)          BBB (sf)                 18.00
E (deferrable)          BB (sf)                  20.00
Subordinated notes      NR                       42.50

NR--Not rated.


LEHMAN BROTHERS 2007-LLF: S&P Cuts Rating on NOP-3 Certs to D
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
NOP-3 commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Lehman
Brothers Floating Rate Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-LLF C5, a
U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, to
'D (sf)' from 'CCC- (sf)'.

The downgrade follows principal losses detailed in the July 15,
2014, trustee remittance report.  The principal losses, which
totaled $9,859, resulted from the partial release of the Normandy
Office Portfolio loan, which provides 100% of the cash flow to the
class NOP raked certificates.  The Normandy Office Portfolio loan
remains with the special servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC.
As part of the partial release, the class NOP-3 experienced a
0.25% loss of its $4 million original principal balance.


MADISON PARK VII: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'BB+'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D, and E notes from Madison Park Funding VII Ltd., a U.S.
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managed by Credit Suisse
Asset Management LLC.  S&P also affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' rating on
the class A notes.

The upgrades reflect S&P's view of the underlying asset pool's
credit performance since the effective date on Aug. 12, 2011, for
which S&P referenced the June 30, 2011, trustee report.  The
rating affirmation reflects S&P's belief that the available credit
support is commensurate with the current rating level.

Since June 2011, the credit quality of the transaction's
underlying asset portfolio has improved.  According to the
June 30, 2014, trustee report, the amount of 'CCC' rated assets
decreased to $4.82 million from $7.41 million.  In addition, the
total collateral par amount has increased to $404.23 million from
$397.62 million.  The transaction's overall overcollateralization
(O/C) ratio tests have benefited from this increase.  For
instance, the class B O/C ratio has increased to 141.22% from
137.26%.  S&P also noticed the underlying portfolio is more
diverse with the total number of obligors increasing to 174 from
135.  The transaction reinvestment period ended on June 15, 2014.

Standard & Poor's will continue to review whether, in its view,
the ratings 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

Madison Park Funding VII Ltd.

                         Cash flow
       Previous          implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating            rating      cushion(i)   rating
A      AAA (sf)          AAA (sf)    14.89%       AAA (sf)
B      AA (sf)           AAA (sf)    3.70%        AAA (sf)
C      A (sf)            AA (sf)     1.04%        AA- (sf)
D      BBB (sf)          A- (sf)     0.84%        BBB+ (sf)
E      BB (sf)           BB+ (sf)    5.05%        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.

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     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)
B     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)  AAA (sf)
C     AA (sf)    AA- (sf)   AA- (sf)    AA+ (sf)  AA- (sf)
D     A- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)  BBB+ (sf)   A+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)
E     BB+ (sf)   BB (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      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
C      AA (sf)      BBB+ (sf)     BBB+ (sf)     AA- (sf)
D      A- (sf)      BB+ (sf)      BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
E      BB+ (sf)     B (sf)        B (sf)        BB+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED

Madison Park Funding VII Ltd.

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

RATING AFFIRMED

Madison Park Funding VII Ltd.

Class     Rating
A         AAA (sf)


MERRILL LYNCH 2006-1: S&P Lowers Rating on Class L Notes to 'D'
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
L pass-through certificates from Merrill Lynch Floating Trust's
series 2006-1, a U.S. commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS)
transaction, to 'D (sf)' from 'CCC- (sf)'.

S&P lowered its rating on class L to 'D (sf)' because it expects
the recurring interest shortfalls, which it has already incurred
for 10 consecutive months, to remain outstanding for an extended
period.  As of the Aug. 15, 2014, trustee remittance report, class
L accumulated $129,393 in interest shortfalls; in addition there
were $145,640 in total monthly interest shortfalls from interest
not advanced because the sole remaining loan was deemed
nonrecoverable and none of the outstanding classes received
interest payments.

The remaining Royal Holiday Portfolio loan has a $65.0 million
trust balance and a $103.0 million whole loan balance (according
to the August 2014 trustee remittance report) and is secured by
six full-service hotels totaling 1,501 rooms across various cities
in Mexico.  The 90-plus-days delinquent loan was transferred to
the special servicer, CT Investment Management Co. LLC (CT), on
Feb. 11, 2010, due to imminent default.  According to CT, updated
financial data for the hotel portfolio is not available and
resolution timing is uncertain because the borrower has filed for
bankruptcy protection in the U.S.and Mexico. CT continues to work
through the legal proceedings.

RATINGS LIST

Merrill Lynch Floating Trust
Pass-through certificates series 2006-1
                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To       From
L       59023UAS1    D (sf)   CCC- (sf)


MERRILL LYNCH 2033-D: Moody's Cuts Ratings on 2 Classes to Caa1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of five
tranches backed by Prime Jumbo RMBS loans, issued by Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors Trust MLCC 2003-D.

Complete rating actions are as follows:

Issuer: Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust MLCC 2003-D

Cl. A, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. X-A-2, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
Downgraded to Baa3 (sf)

Cl. X-B, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Cl. B-1, Downgraded to Ba3 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
Downgraded to Ba1 (sf)

Cl. B-2, Downgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Jan 15, 2014
Downgraded to B3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The actions are a result of the recent performance of the
underlying pool and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the pool.

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 6.2% in July 2014 from 7.3% in
July 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.


MIRAMAX LLC 2011-1: S&P Withdraws 'BB' Rating on Class B Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on Miramax
LLC's series 2011-1, a securitization collateralized primarily by
the rights to the intellectual property and film materials
relating to a portfolio of films, TV series, mini-series,
specials, and shorts, as well as rights in books and development
projects.

Because the new series 2014-1 refinanced series 2011-1, the series
2011-1 notes were fully redeemed and S&P withdrew its ratings.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Miramax LLC
Series 2011-1 film library asset-backed notes

               Rating
Class     To             From

A         NR             BBB (sf)
B         NR             BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.


MORGAN STANLEY 2000-F1: Fitch Affirms 'Csf' Rating on 3 Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has taken the following rating actions on Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter Mortgage Capital Owner Trust, series 2000-F1
as follows:

   -- Class B affirmed at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- Class C affirmed at 'BBBsf''; Outlook Stable;
   -- Class D upgraded to 'BBsf' from 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- Class E affirmed at 'Csf'/RE 100%;
   -- Class F affirmed at 'Csf'/RE 100%;
   -- Class G affirmed at 'Csf'/RE 100%.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The upgrade of the class D notes as well as the affirmation of
class B and C notes reflect the robust credit enhancement
available to the class and the material concentrations of defeased
collateral which should provide for stable performance.  Fitch's
affirmed classes E, F, and G at 'Csf' due to their subordinate
position which exposes the classes to the performance of large
obligors over the long term; however, current recovery estimates
remain at 100%.  Fitch will continue to monitor this transaction
and may take additional rating action in the event of changes in
performance and credit enhancement measures.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

As the majority of the pool consists of collateral in defeasance,
the performance of the senior classes will be tied to the future
performance of the currently high credit quality collateral
providers.  The performance of the subordinate notes is exposed to
the performance the few large remaining obligors.  However, as the
transaction continues to amortize, positive rating actions on the
subordinate tranches could be possible as credit enhancement
builds and relative exposure to larger obligor performance
lessens.


MORGAN STANLEY 2014-1: Fitch Assigns BB Rating on Class B-4 Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings assigns the following ratings to Morgan Stanley
Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 2014-1:

   -- $229,291,000 class A-1 exchangeable certificates 'AAAsf';
      Outlook Stable;
   -- $206,362,000 class A-2 depositable certificates 'AAAsf';
      Outlook Stable;
   -- $22,929,000 class A-3 depositable certificates 'AAAsf';
      Outlook Stable;
   -- $8,336,000 class B-1 certificates 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $7,181,000 class B-2 certificates 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $4,874,000 class B-3 certificates 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $2,564,000 class B-4 certificates 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;

The $4,232,741 class B-5 certificates will not be rated.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

High Quality Mortgage Pool: The collateral pool consists of 291
seven year hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARM) totaling
approximately $256.5 million made to borrowers with strong credit
profiles, low leverage, and substantial liquid reserves.  All of
the loans were originated by First Republic Bank (FRB), which
Fitch considers to be an above-average originator of prime jumbo
product.  Third-party, loan-level due diligence was conducted on
100% of the pool with minimal findings indicating strong
underwriting controls.

Payment Shock Exposure: The pool consists entirely of ARM loans
while more than half also have interest-only (IO) features
originated prior to January 2014.  Loan products that result in
periodic changes in a borrower's payment such as ARMs and IOs
expose borrowers to payment reset risk.  Future rises in interest
rates and payment re-amortization after the expiration of interest
only periods can increase monthly payments considerably.  To
account for this risk, Fitch applied a probability of default (PD)
penalty of approximately 1.60x to the ARM loans without IO terms
and 1.76x to those with IO features.

High Geographic Concentration: The pool's primary concentration
risk is California where 65.30% of the properties are located.
Additionally, 46.00% of the pool is secured by properties in the
San Francisco metropolitan statistical area (MSA), reflective of
FRB's strong footprint in the area.  The top five MSAs, which are
in California, New York, and Massachusetts, comprise approximately
83.9% of the pool.  The significant geographic concentrations
resulted in an increase in the lifetime default expectations for
the pool of around 1.87x.

Documentation Adjustment: For borrowers who have accounts with FRB
with reserves that meet a certain threshold, FRB's asset
verification process consists of capturing a screenshot of the
borrower's account, which is categorized as 'Stated, Partially
Verified' on the American Securitization Forum's (ASF) loan tape
provided by the sponsor.  However, because FRB has a complete
record of these borrowers' assets and reserves, Fitch considered
the assets for these loans to be fully verified in its analysis.
This adjustment impacted 150 loans (51.5% of the pool) and
resulted in a decrease in the pool's 'AAAsf' expected loss by
roughly 50 basis points (bps).

Seasoned Property Value Exception: Under Fitch's 'U.S. RMBS Master
Criteria' dated July 1, 2014, the agency expects property
valuations to be no more than 12 months old at the time of
securitization.  However, the transaction includes 22 loans for
which the valuations are between 13 - 16 months old and 13 loans
with valuations aged 16 - 18 months.  Fitch did not deem
adjustments to these loans' original property values necessary
because all of them are secured by properties in areas that have
experienced home prices increases over the past 18 months.  Given
the strong loan attributes and borrower profiles, in Fitch's view
it is unlikely that these properties experienced price
depreciation or deterioration in their condition.

Small Loan Count: While total loan count in this pool is 291, the
weighted average number of loans (WAN) is 218.  Transactions with
a small number of loans carry the risk that portfolio performance
may be adversely impacted by a few assets that underperform
relative to the statistically derived assumptions underlying their
ratings.  Therefore, Fitch applied a penalty of approximately
1.18x to the pool's lifetime default expectations to account for
this risk.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

After Fitch determines credit ratings through a rating stress
scenario analysis, additional sensitivity analyses are considered.
The analyses provide a defined stress sensitivity to demonstrate
how the ratings would react to steeper market value declines
(MVDs) than that assumed at issuance as well as a defined
sensitivity that demonstrates the stress assumptions required to
reduce a rating by one full category, to non-investment grade, and
to 'CCCsf'.

In its analysis, Fitch considered additional sustainable MVD
(sMVD) stress assumptions to those generated by the SHP model.
These supplementary scenarios reflected base case sMVDs that
aligned Fitch's 'Asf' sMVD stress assumptions with peak-to-trough
MVDs experienced in the U.S. during the recent financial crisis
(2007 - 2009).  This is consistent with Fitch's view as described
in its U.S. RMBS Loan Loss Model Criteria which associates the
recent national housing recession and related performance
observations with an 'Asf' stress.  The result of this sensitivity
analysis was included in the consideration of the loss
expectations for this transaction.  The sensitivity analysis
resulted in a base sMVD of 19.4%, compared with the model
projected 22.2%.

Another sensitivity analysis was focused on determining how the
ratings would react to steeper MVDs at the national level.  The
analysis assumes MVDs of 10%, 20%, and 30%, in addition to the
model projected 19.4% for this pool.  The analysis indicates there
is some potential rating migration with higher MVDs, compared with
the model projection.

Fitch also conducted defined rating sensitivities, which determine
the stresses to MVDs that would reduce a rating by one full
category, to non-investment grade, and to 'CCCsf'.  For example,
additional MVDs of 5%, 24% and 48% would potentially reduce the
'AAAsf' rated class down one rating category, to non-investment
grade, and to 'CCCsf', respectively.


NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2006-1: Fitch Raises Rating on E Notes From BB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed two and upgraded four classes of notes
issued by NewStar Commercial Loan Trust 2006-1 (NewStar 2006-1) as
follows:

   -- $38,653,082 class A-1 notes affirmed at 'AAAsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $5,173,041 class A-2 notes affirmed at 'AAAsf'; Outlook
      Stable;

   -- $22,500,000 class B notes upgraded to 'AAAsf' from 'AAsf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $35,000,000 class C notes upgraded to 'AAsf' from 'Asf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $25,000,000 class D notes upgraded to 'Asf' from 'BBBsf';
      Outlook Stable;

   -- $13,750,000 class E notes upgraded to 'BBBsf' from 'BBsf';
      Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class F notes.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The rating actions on the notes are based on the improved
performance of the transaction since Fitch's last rating review in
August 2013.  The credit enhancement has increased on all the
notes due to the continued deleveraging of the class A-1 and A-2
notes (collectively, the class A notes).  Since the last review,
the class A notes have received a total of approximately $108.3
million, or 71.2% of their previous outstanding balance.

In addition to the deleveraging of the senior notes, according to
the June 2014 trustee report, the weighted average rating factor
(WARF) has improved to 'BB-/B+' from 'B+/B' at last review.  Fitch
has also maintained the Outlooks on all classes of notes to
reflect its expectation that the performance of the underlying
portfolio and outstanding liabilities will remain stable in the
near term.

The notes of NewStar 2006-1 benefit from credit enhancement in the
form of collateral coverage, note subordination, and the
application of excess spread via the additional principal amount
(APA).  For every dollar that is charged off of the performing
portfolio, the APA feature directs recoveries from charged-off
loans and excess interest proceeds otherwise available to the
certificate holders to pay down the senior-most notes in an amount
equal to the charged-off amount.  The APA completely paid off on
the December 2010 payment date, and as a result, the certificate
holders have been receiving excess interest proceeds since the
March 2011 payment date.  In the absence of additional charged off
loans, Fitch expects the certificate holders to continue receiving
excess interest proceeds.

This review was conducted under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Corporate CDOs' using the
Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) for projecting future default and
recovery levels for the underlying portfolio.  These default and
recovery levels were then utilized in Fitch's cash flow model
under various default timing and interest rate stress scenarios,
as described in the report.  The default timing scenarios were
also adjusted, since the weighted average life of the portfolio
was approximately three years.  As a result, Fitch assumed that a
peak of 60% of the defaults would occur in the first, second, and
third year for the front, middle, and back default timing,
respectively.  All the notes passed the various stress scenarios
at rating levels in line with or above their credit ratings.

Although classes C, D, and E are able to pass at higher ratings in
the cash flow model, their upgrades have been capped due to their
subordinated position in the capital structure and their potential
exposure to adverse selection as the portfolio becomes more
concentrated.

Rating Sensitivities

The performance of the portfolio may be sensitive to significant
credit deterioration or distressed recoveries of the portfolio.
The notes may also be sensitive to increasing concentration risks
as the portfolio continues to amortize.  Fitch will continue to
monitor the transaction regularly and as warranted by such events.

NewStar 2006-1 is a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that
closed on June 8, 2006 and is managed by NewStar Financial, Inc.
(NewStar).  The transaction's reinvestment period ended in June
2011 and its legal final maturity date is in March 2022.  NewStar
2006-1 is secured by a portfolio comprised of 96.3% senior term
loans, primarily to middle-market issuers and 3.7% in structured
finance assets, based on total commitment amounts.  Fitch's
leveraged finance group provided model-based credit opinions for a
majority of the loans in the portfolio.  Information for the
model-based credit opinions was gathered from financial statements
provided to Fitch by NewStar.


NEWSTAR COMMERCIAL 2007-1: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed six classes of notes issued by NewStar
Commercial Loan Trust 2007-1 (NewStar 2007-1) as follows:

   -- $203,633,854 class A-1 notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $64,058,165 class A-2 notes at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $24,000,000 class B notes at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $58,500,000 class C notes at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $27,000,000 class D notes at 'BBB+sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $29,100,000 class E notes at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class F notes.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
transaction since Fitch's last rating action in August 2013.
Since the last review, the class A-1 and A-2 notes have received a
total of approximately $150.2 million, or 35.9% of their previous
outstanding balance.  According to the loan tape provided to Fitch
as of July 10, 2014, the portfolio has no charged-off loans and
Fitch considers approximately 10.6% of the total commitments to be
in the 'CCC' category or below, compared to 16.8% at the last
review.  The Outlooks on all classes of notes have also been
maintained to reflect the expectation that the performance of the
underlying portfolio and outstanding liabilities will remain
stable in the near term.

The notes of NewStar 2007-1 benefit from credit enhancement in the
form of collateral coverage, note subordination, and the
application of excess spread via the additional principal amount
(APA).  For every dollar that is charged off of the performing
portfolio, the APA feature directs recoveries from charged-off
loans and excess interest proceeds otherwise available to the
certificate holders to pay down the senior-most notes in an amount
equal to the charged-off amount.  The APA was completely paid off
on the February 2010 payment date, and as a result, the
certificate holders have been receiving excess interest proceeds
since the August 2010 payment date.  In the absence of additional
charged off loans, Fitch expects the certificate holders to
continue receiving excess interest proceeds.

This review was conducted under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Corporate CDOs' using the
Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) for projecting future default and
recovery levels for the underlying portfolio.  These default and
recovery levels were then utilized in Fitch's cash flow model
under various default timing and interest rate stress scenarios,
as described in the report.  All notes passed the various stress
scenarios at rating levels in line with or above their current
ratings.

Although classes B, C, and D are able to pass at higher ratings in
the cash flow model, they have been affirmed due to their
subordinated position in the capital structure and their potential
exposure to adverse selection as the portfolio becomes more
concentrated.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The performance of the portfolio may be sensitive to significant
credit deterioration or distressed recoveries of the portfolio.
The notes may also be sensitive to increasing concentration risks
as the portfolio continues to amortize.  Fitch will continue to
monitor the transaction regularly and as warranted by such events.

NewStar 2007-1 is a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that
closed on June 5, 2007 and is managed by NewStar Financial, Inc.
(NewStar).  The transaction's reinvestment period ended in May
2013, and its final legal maturity date is in September 2022.
NewStar 2007-1 is secured by a portfolio comprised of 97.2%
corporate loans, primarily to middle-market issuers, and 2.8%
CLOs, based on the total commitment amounts.  Fitch's leveraged
finance group provided model-based credit opinions for a majority
of the loans in the portfolio.  Information for the model-based
credit opinions was gathered from financial statements provided to
Fitch by NewStar.


PEACHTREE FRANCHISE 1999-A: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 3 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings for Peachtree Franchise
Loan Notes series 1999-A as follows:

   -- Class B at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- Class C at 'Dsf'; RE 40%;
   -- Class D at 'Dsf'; RE 0%;
   -- Class E at 'Dsf'; RE 0%.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmation of the class B notes reflects the class's ability
to pass stress case scenarios consistent with the current ratings,
as well as its exposure to growing obligor concentrations.
Classes C, D, and E were affirmed at 'Dsf' as the classes have
suffered principal writedowns.  Due to accumulated interest
shortfalls, the recovery estimates for class C is 40% and 0% for
classes D and E.  Fitch will continue to monitor this transaction
and may take additional rating action in the event of changes in
performance and credit enhancement measures.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Due to the remaining obligor concentrations, the performance of
the notes could be impacted by the performance of certain large
obligors.  This is a primary driver of the current 'Bsf' rating
assigned to the class B notes.  Deterioration in performance of
these obligors may warrant negative rating actions on the class B
notes.


PREFERREDPLUS ELP-1: S&P Puts 'BB' Rating on 2 Certs on Watch Pos.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its 'BB' ratings on
Classes A and B from PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1's US$40.754
million fixed-rate preferred plus trust certificates series ELP-1
on CreditWatch with positive implications.

S&P's ratings on the certificates are dependent on its rating on
the underlying security, Kinder Morgan Inc.'s US$1.1 billion 7.75%
medium-term notes due Jan. 15, 2032 (BB/Watch Pos).

The rating actions reflect the Aug. 11, 2014, placement of S&P's
'BB' rating on the underlying security on CreditWatch positive.
S&P may take subsequent rating actions on this transaction due to
changes to its rating assigned to the underlying security.

RATINGS PLACED ON CREDITWATCH POSITIVE

PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1

Class              To                From
A                  BB/Watch Pos      BB
B                  BB/Watch Pos      BB


PREFERRED TERM XXIII: Moody's Ups Rating on 3 Note Classes to B2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Preferred Term Securities XXIII, Ltd.:

$544,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-1 Senior Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $347,812,488), Upgraded to Aa1 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Aa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$321,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-FP Senior Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $168,670,206), Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 A1 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$141,000,000 Floating Rate Class A-2 Senior Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $134,423,261), Upgraded to Aa3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 A3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$57,600,000 Floating Rate Class B-FP Mezzanine Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $40,986,057), Upgraded to Baa3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$67,400,000 Floating Rate Class B-1 Mezzanine Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $64,255,020), Upgraded to Baa3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$31,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class B-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
December 22, 2036 (current balance of $29,551,567), Upgraded to
Baa3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 B1 (sf) Placed Under Review
for Possible

$52,800,000 Floating Rate Class C-FP Mezzanine Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $42,723,672), Upgraded to B2 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$81,200,000 Floating Rate Class C-1 Mezzanine Notes Due December
22, 2036 (current balance of $79,545,388), Upgraded to B2 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$28,000,000 Fixed/Floating Rate Class C-2 Mezzanine Notes Due
December 22, 2036 (current balance of $27,429,430), Upgraded to B2
(sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Ca (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

Moody's also affirmed the rating of the following notes issued by
PreTSL Combination Certificates

$500,000 Combination Certificates, Series P XXIII-1 (current
rated balance of $326,990), Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on March
15, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Preferred Term Securities XXIII, Ltd., issued in September 2006,
is a collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank,
insurance and REIT trust preferred securities (TruPS).

PreTSL Combination Certificates Series P XXIII-1, issued in
September 2006, is a combination note security originally
comprised of $250,000 of Class A-1 notes, $200,000 of income notes
issued by Preferred Term Securities XXIII, Ltd. and $176,000 of
zero coupon strips payable on March 15, 2031 stripped from bonds
issued by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDO methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating
TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect deleveraging
of the Class A-1 and Class A-FP notes, an increase in the
transaction's over-collateralization ratios, and the resumption of
interest payments of previously deferring assets since December
2013.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDO methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2) expanding the
default timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted
scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank and
insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated by
Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

In addition, the Class A-1 and Class A-FP notes have paid down
collectively by approximately 4.16% or $22.4 million since
December 2013 using principal proceeds from the redemption of the
underlying assets and the diversion of excess interest proceeds.
Due to the methodology update mentioned above, Moody's gave full
par credit in its analysis to four deferring assets that meet
certain criteria, totaling $30 million in par. Five assets with a
total par of $43 million have resumed interest payments on their
TruPS and the total par of assets Moody's assumed to be defaulted
decreased to $248 million from $289 million in December 2013. As a
result, the Class A-1 notes' par coverage has improved to 201.2%
since December 2013, by Moody's calculations. Based on the
trustee's June 23, 2014 report, the over-collateralization ratios
of the Class A, B, C and D notes were 141.1%, 116.9%, 98.2% and
87.3%, respectively, compared to December 2013 levels of 137.8%,
114.1%, 95.0%, and 85.1%, respectively. The A-1 and Class A-FP
notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of excess
interest. In particular, the Class A-FP notes will benefit from
the unique structural feature where principal proceeds from
redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool will be used to
paid down the FP notes if certain portfolio tests are met.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A-1,
A-2, A-FP, B-1, B-2, B-FP, C-1, C-2, and C-FP notes announced on
June 26, 2014. At that time, Moody's had placed the ratings on
review for upgrade as a result of the aforementioned methodology
updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $944.5 million, defaulted/deferring par of $248.0
million, a weighted average default probability of 7.36% (implying
a WARF of 741), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10.0%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's
explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of rating
committee considerations. Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector. Moody's maintains its stable outlook on the US insurance
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains mainly TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks and insurance companies that
Moody's does not rate publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of
bank TruPS that do not have public ratings, Moody's uses
RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed by Moody's Analytics,
to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of
most of the bank obligors in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014
financial data. For insurance TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's relies on the assessment of its Insurance team,
based on the credit analysis of the underlying insurance firms'
annual statutory financial reports. For REIT TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's REIT group assesses their credit
quality using the REIT firms' annual financials.

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
ratings 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 530)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: +1

Class A-FP: +1

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Class B-FP: +1

Class C-1: +1

Class C-2: +1

Class C-FP: +1

Series P XXIII-1: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 956)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class A-FP: -1

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1

Class B-FP: -1

Class C-1: -2

Class C-2: -2

Class C-FP: -1

Series P XXIII-1: 0


SILVER BAY 2014-1: Moody's Assigns Ba2 Rating on $17.1MM Certs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned definitive ratings to five
classes of certificates issued by Silver Bay Realty 2014-1 and
backed by one floating rate loan secured by mortgages on 3,089
single-family rental properties.

The complete rating action follows:

$147.7 million of Class A certificates, assigned Aaa (sf)

$37.7 million of Class B certificates, assigned Aa2 (sf)

$33.0 million of Class C certificates, assigned A2 (sf)

$30.4 million of Class D certificates, assigned Baa3 (sf)

$17.1 million of Class E certificates, assigned Ba2 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

Credit Analysis of Silver Bay Realty 2014-1

Moody's evaluation of the issuer's ultimate ability to repay
interest and principal was based on a recovery analysis (detailed
below) of the portfolio of single-family rental properties backing
this securitization. Moody's recovery analysis approach is not an
opinion that the loan will default, nor a prediction of the
sponsor's intended future plans, but rather represents the rating
agency's analysis of what it considers to be a significantly
stressful resolution.

Moody's also evaluated the portfolio cash flow of Silver Bay
Realty 2014-1 to assess the probability of default during the term
of the loan. However, the limited amount of historical information
currently available on vacancy rates, expenses and cash flow
associated with single-family rental properties in a stress
environment precludes the rating agency from relying significantly
on the transaction's cash flow to meet its long-term obligations.

Moody's concerns about equity foreclosure, as expressed in "Single
Family Rental Securitization Structures Without Mortgages Would
Increase Risk," published on 17 January 2013, were mitigated for
this transaction because both mortgages and pledges of borrower
equity secure the loans backing the transaction. Moody's was
therefore able to assign high investment-grade ratings to the
senior certificates.

Moody's assessment of Silver Bay Property Corp., the property
manager, is that the company has proven its ability to effectively
handle the day-to-day business of managing a national single-
family rental platform. A seasoned senior management team and
effective use of technology are strengths of the property manager.
However, approximately 21% of the properties in this pool are
managed by six third-party managers in five markets. Use of
external managers can result in weaker control and higher
operating costs. Moody's increased Moody's property management
expense assumptions to account for these risks. Although Moody's
did not find Silver Bay to be as strong as some of the operators
in this space, Moody's deem them to be acceptable in their role.
The master servicer and special servicer is Midland Loan Services,
a division of PNC Bank, National Association.

Background

Moody's "Single-Family Rental Securitizations - Institutional
buyers bring different approaches to a new asset class," published
on 6 March 2014, provides a detailed overview of the market for
single-family rental properties.

Methodology

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

In rating securities backed by single-family rental properties,
Moody's compares the credit risk inherent in the underlying
properties with the credit protection the transaction structure
offers. On 6 March 2014, Moody's published a "Request for Comment:
Moody's Approach to Rating Single-Family Rental Securitizations."
The request for comment period is now closed. If the new approach
becomes effective as proposed, it will have no ratings impact on
this transaction.

The analysis of Silver Bay Realty 2014-1 is based largely on the
approach Moody's uses to rate large loan commercial mortgage
backed securities (CMBS) backed by multifamily housing, "Moody's
Approach to Rating CMBS Large Loan/Single Borrower Transactions."

Moody's relied on this CMBS rating methodology to analyze the
expenses incurred and cash flows generated by the underlying
properties and to assess the probability of the loan's default
during its term, and it stresses the recovery value of properties
upon refinancing or liquidation, as detailed below.

Moody's deviated from the published methodology when assessing the
collateral value, basing its collateral value analysis on the
lower of the recent BPO (broker price opinion) values, subject to
further haircuts and partial adjustment of the purchase price for
renovations completed by Silver Bay, instead of its usual cash
flow analysis based on cap rates. The analysis took into account,
among other things, a review of the housing markets in key
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), Moody's home price
depreciation assumptions for conventional RMBS, and Moody's
Analytics' "Scenario 4" stress, which models a protracted slump in
the economy. As a result of using these stressed values, Moody's
deviated from its published LTV targets. For example, to calculate
an advance rate (LTV) consistent with a Aaa rating, Moody's
assumed a further 40%-45% price decline on the unsold properties,
depending on the MSA.

The performance of the manager is a key driver of cash flows in a
single-family rental securitization. Although the operation and
management of single-family rental properties may closely resemble
that of multi-family rental properties, the operating costs for
single-family properties may be higher than for multi-family
properties because of their geographic dispersion. Additionally,
because each home has unique features, the renovation,
maintenance, and marketing may be more demanding than in a typical
multi-family setting. Managing on the national level requires
greater economies of scale.

The value of single-family residential properties has not
traditionally been directly related to the income the property can
generate as a rental property. "Value" as interpreted by
traditional buyers and sellers of single-family residential
properties could include many qualitative factors that cannot be
quantified using an income approach. Moody's believes that the
traditional RMBS valuation of the single-family residential
properties, which is based on recent sales of comparable
properties, is more appropriate for this asset class. However,
because of the high concentration of properties in a few markets
and the potential for greater price volatility, Moody's assumes
greater home price depreciation when determining the recovery
values of these properties, compared to the stress it uses to rate
typical RMBS transactions.

Recovery Value Analysis

Moody's bases its principal recovery estimates on a liquidation
scenario in which the trust liquidates a significant portion of
the properties under stress conditions, such as falling home
prices and long foreclosure timelines, which increase the costs of
maintaining the properties. Moody's recovery estimates also
account for rental income on the assumption that the trust will
continue to rent out some of the homes following a default until
the properties are foreclosed on and vacated prior to REO sale.
The collateral's final recovery value is equal to Moody's estimate
of the properties' initial value (the Moody's Value), minus the
value lost following home price stress, adjusted for a portion of
the rental revenue net of the full rental expenses and all
expenses incurred by vacant properties. Additionally, Moody's
adjusts the final recovery amount by the legal, servicing and
other carrying costs associated with a portfolio liquidation.
Moody's bases its assumptions on the amount of historical data it
has accumulated from its assessments of single-family residential
values and of current market conditions.

Moody's determines a stressed recovery value in a default scenario
by:

-- assigning an initial Moody's Value to the collateral

-- assuming that a limited percentage of properties will be sold
at full market value and the trust will receive only the
applicable release premium

-- stressing the recovery values of the remaining properties that
were not released

Moody's then calculates revenue and expense adjustments on the
stressed recovery value by

-- assuming that a portion of the properties are vacant at
default and estimating the rental income and associated costs on
that portion of properties during the stressed liquidation
timelines

-- estimating the total cost required to maintain all the
remaining properties until liquidation

-- estimating foreclosure costs such as fixed legal costs,
servicing fees, special servicing liquidation fees and transfer
taxes

-- estimating potential master servicer advances plus the
interest on the servicer advances

Net Cash Flow Adjustment and DSCR

Moody's evaluates the net cash flow from the properties to assess
the loan's probability of default during the term. It makes
property-specific adjustments to the underwriter's net cash flow
projections. To derive the net cash flow available to service the
debt, Moody's considers current rental market conditions, recent
portfolio performance, operating expense ratios, and industry
outlooks and forecasts by industry participants. Moody's also
considers market-level adjustments to concessions, sales and
marketing, commissions, management fees, and capital items such as
ongoing maintenance expenses and replacement reserves to the
extent these items are not already fully reflected in the
underwritten cash flow. Moody's derives its adjustment to property
level cash flow for single-family rental properties from its
experience in assessing stabilized net cash flow for multifamily
properties.

Highlights of the Credit Analysis of Silver Bay 2014-1

The transaction's Aaa advance rate (the ratio of the par balance
of the senior certificate to the Moody's Value) is 41.3%. Moody's
uses the advance rate to determine whether the asset's value is
sufficient to support a targeted rating level given the amount of
the transaction's liabilities.

Moody's calculates the final recovery value, which varies by
rating levels, by following these steps.

1) Moody's determined an initial Moody's Value for this portfolio
of $358 million, after considering (a) the sponsor's acquisition
cost, adjusted for 50% of Moody's estimate of home price
appreciation (excluding lower-value properties) since acquisition,
plus 45% of rehabilitation cost, and (b) 85% of the most recent
broker price opinion. The cumulative broker price opinion on the
properties is about $481 million.

2) Moody's assumed that a certain percentage of these properties
would be sold out of the transaction at full market value prior to
the borrower's default, netting proceeds equal to the allocated
loan amounts plus a pre-determined premium on those properties.

3) Moody's then stressed the recovery values of the remaining
properties the sponsor did not release by applying a home price
depreciation factor to the properties' Moody's Value, ranging from
40% to 45%, depending on the MSA.

4) In its Aaa stress scenarios, Moody's assumed that the total
cost required to maintain all the properties remaining in the pool
after default, including real estate taxes, property management
fees, vacancy, Home Owner's Association fees, insurance, repairs,
and sales and marketing, would stretch out over 38 months, while a
portion of the properties would generate income for 28 months.
Moody's stress for the foreclosure timeline for this transaction
is lower than for a typical RMBS transaction because the rating
agency expects the foreclosure process to be quicker, given that
the trust does not have to foreclose on individual borrowers;
instead, it can foreclose either on the lien on the mortgage or on
the equity of the SPV borrower.

5) Moody's estimated additional foreclosure costs which include
fixed legal costs, a special servicer fee of 0.25% and a master
servicing fee of 0.135% of the loan amount; special servicing
liquidation fees of 0.75% of the property value; and transfer
taxes of 0.70% for any property in Florida.

6) Finally, Moody's assumed that the master servicer would
continue to advance interest (to the extent deemed recoverable) on
the certificates until the properties were liquidated, and
estimated the interest that would accrue on the servicer advances.

Cash Flow Analysis

Moody's weighted average adjustment to the pool's underwritten net
cash flow was -17.4%. The Moody's debt service coverage ratio is
2.18x (based on initially indicated pricing).

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

A larger decline in home prices and higher rental vacancy rates
and expenses than Moody's initially assumed could have an adverse
impact on the ratings. The ratings could also be negatively
affected if the ability of the property manager to effectively
manage the day-to-day operations of the business is compromised.

Sensitivity Analysis

If, in determining the initial rating, we decreased the Moody's
recovery on the collateral by 5%, the model-indicated ratings
would be the following:

for the Class A's current rating of Aaa (sf), Aa1

for the Class B's current rating of Aa2 (sf), A1

for the Class C's current rating of A2 (sf), Baa1

for the Class D's current rating of Baa3 (sf), Ba1

for the Class E's current rating of Ba2 (sf), B1

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.


SLM PRIVATE 2003-B: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Class C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms all ratings of the outstanding student loan
notes issued by SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2003-B (SLM
2003-B).  The Rating Outlook remains Negative.

Key Rating Drivers:

Collateral Quality: The trust is collateralized by approximately
$452.5 million of private student loans originated by Navient
Corp. under the Signature Education Loan Program, LAWLOANS
program, MBALoans program, and MEDLOANS program.  The projected
remaining defaults are expected to range between 8%-10%.  A
recovery rate of 10% was applied which was determined to be
appropriate based on data provided by the issuer.

Credit Enhancement (CE): CE is provided by excess spread and the
senior notes benefits from subordination provided by the junior
notes.  As of the June 16, 2014 distribution, the senior parity,
subordinate parity and total parity ratios are 118.46%, 110.13%
and 96.71% respectively, comparable to levels observed last year.

Liquidity Support: Liquidity support is provided by a reserve
account sized at approximately $3.12 million.

Servicing Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
Navient Solutions Inc., which has demonstrated satisfactory
servicing capabilities

Rating Sensitivities

As Fitch's base case default proxy is derived primarily from
historical collateral performance, actual performance may differ
from the expected performance, resulting in higher loss levels
than the base case.  This will result in a decline in CE and
remaining loss coverage levels available to the notes and may make
certain note ratings susceptible to potential negative rating
actions, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage.
Fitch will continue to monitor the performance of the trust.

Fitch affirms the following ratings:

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2003-B:

   -- Class A-2 at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class A-3 at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class A-4 at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class B at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class C at 'CCCsf', RE 15%.


SLM PRIVATE 2003-C: Fitch Affirms 'CCCsf' Rating on Class C Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings affirms all ratings of the outstanding student loan
notes issued by SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2003-C (SLM
2003-C).  The Rating Outlook remains Negative.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

   -- Collateral Quality: The trust is collateralized by
      approximately $474.3 million of private student loans
      originated by Navient Corp. under the Signature Education
      Loan Program, LAWLOANS program, MBALoans program, and
      MEDLOANS program.  The projected remaining defaults are
      expected to range between 8%-10%.  A recovery rate of 10%
      was applied which was determined to be appropriate based on
      data provided by the issuer.

   -- Credit Enhancement (CE): CE is provided by excess spread and
      the senior notes benefits from subordination provided by the
      junior notes.  As of the June 16, 2014 distribution, the
      senior parity, subordinate parity and total parity ratios
      are 118.42%, 109.68% and 96.36% respectively comparable to
      levels observed last year.

   -- Liquidity Support: Liquidity support is provided by a
      reserve account sized at approximately $3.124 million.

   -- Servicing Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by
      Navient Solutions Inc., which has demonstrated satisfactory
      servicing capabilities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

As Fitch's base case default proxy is derived primarily from
historical collateral performance, actual performance may differ
from the expected performance, resulting in higher loss levels
than the base case.  This will result in a decline in CE and
remaining loss coverage levels available to the notes and may make
certain note ratings susceptible to potential negative rating
actions, depending on the extent of the decline in coverage.
Fitch will continue to monitor the performance of the trust.

Fitch affirms the following:

SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 2003-C:

   -- Class A-2 affirmed at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class A-3 affirmed at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class A-4 affirmed at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class A-5 affirmed at 'A-sf'; Outlook Negative
   -- Class B affirmed at 'BBsf'; Outlook Negative;
   -- Class C affirmed at 'CCCsf'; RE 10%.


SULLIVAN CLO I: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'B+'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
C, D-1, D-2, E-1, and E-2 notes from Fraser Sullivan CLO I
Ltd./Fraser Sullivan CLO I Inc., a cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction managed by 3i Debt Management U.S.
LLC and removed them from CreditWatch where they were placed with
positive implications on June 18, 2014.  S&P also affirmed its
ratings on the class A-1, A-2, and B notes.

Since S&P's November 2013 rating actions, the two classes of A
notes have paid down by $56 million to 14% of their initial
issuance amounts.  The class A/B overcollateralization ratio
increased to 223% as of the July 2014 trustee report, from 173% as
of the Oct. 2013 trustee report which we referenced in S&P's last
rating action.  S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class
A-1, A-2, and B notes and raised its ratings on the class C, D-1,
D-2, E-1, and E-2 notes to reflect the increase in credit support
available to these notes.

The transaction is exposed to concentration risk because only 51
unique obligors remain in the portfolio.  The top four obligors
represent over 20% of the entire portfolio.  Although the class E-
1 and E-2 notes now pass S&P's cash flow stresses at a higher
rating category, S&P only raised its ratings on them to B+ because
the notes are constrained by the top obligor test.

The balance of fixed-rate assets is $4.9 million while the balance
of fixed-rate liablities from the class D-2 and E-2 notes is $15
million.  The difference between these balances has caused S&P's
cash flow results for the class C, D, and E notes to become
sensitive to the various interest rate and default assumptions
used.

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

Fraser Sullivan CLO I Ltd./Fraser Sullivan CLO I Inc.

                              Cash flow
        Previous              implied    Cash flow    Final
                                                    cushion
Class   rating                rating     (%)(i)       rating
A-1     AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)   15.25       AAA (sf)
A-2     AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)   15.25       AAA (sf)
B       AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)   15.25       AAA (sf)
C       AA- (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)   1.96        AA+ (sf)
D-1     BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)   13.55       BB+ (sf)
D-2     BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BB+ (sf)   12.97       BB+ (sf)
E-1     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BB- (sf)   1.86        B+ (sf)
E-2     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BB- (sf)   1.86        B+ (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.

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   Corr.      Corr.
        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       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
D-1     BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)
D-2     BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)
E-1     BB- (sf)    B (sf)     BB- (sf)   BB (sf)     B+ (sf)
E-2     BB- (sf)    B (sf)     BB- (sf)   BB (sf)     B+ (sf)

Corr.--Correlation

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       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C       AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
D-1     BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)      CCC (sf)    BB+ (sf)
D-2     BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)      CCC- (sf)   BB+ (sf)
E-1     BB- (sf)    B+ (sf)       CC (sf)     B+ (sf)
E-2     BB- (sf)    B+ (sf)       CC (sf)     B+ (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Fraser Sullivan CLO I Ltd./Fraser Sullivan CLO I Inc.
                       Rating
Class    Identifier    To          From
A-1      355524AA7     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2      355524AB5     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B        355524AC3     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C        355524AD1     AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
D-1      355524AE9     BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)/Watch Pos
D-2      35552PAB8     BB+ (sf)    BB- (sf)/Watch Pos
E-1      355524AF6     B+ (sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
E-2      35552PAC6     B+ (sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos


SYMPHONY CLO III: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1a, A-1b, A-2a, A-2b, B, and C notes from Symphony CLO III Ltd.,
a U.S. collateralized loan obligation managed by Symphony Asset
Management LLC, and removed them from CreditWatch with positive
implications.  In addition, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class
D and E notes.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the monthly trustee report dated
July 2, 2014.

The upgrades reflect a collective paydown to the class A-1a and A-
2a notes, as well as general improvement in the underlying
collateral's credit quality since S&P's Jan. 2012 rating actions.
The affirmed ratings reflect S&P's belief that the credit support
available is commensurate with the current rating levels.

Since January 2012, post-reinvestment period principal
amortization has only resulted in a $13.31 million collective
paydown to the class A-1a and A-2a notes, which has slightly
improved the transaction's class A/B, C, and D
overcollateralization ratio tests.  Although the transaction
exited its reinvestment period in May 2013, the collateral manager
has continued to reinvest post-reinvestment period principal
proceeds they received from credit-improved or prepaid collateral
debt obligations, in line with restrictions in the transaction
documents.  On the May 15, 2014, distribution date, the collateral
manager reinvested $24.60 million of the available $29.92 million.

The underlying portfolio's credit quality has improved since S&P's
last rating actions.  Its general seasoning combined with credit
quality movement in the underlying collateral distributions (with
an increase of $19.65 million in underlying assets with a rating
in the investment-grade range and an increase of $52.77 million in
underlying assets with a rating in the 'BB' range) has decreased
the scenario default rates (SDRs), with the 'AAA' SDR dropping by
more than 9% since January 2012.  The amount of 'CCC' rated
collateral held in the transaction's asset portfolio has remained
stable since S&P's last rating actions.  According to the July
2014 monthly report, the transaction held $34.24 million in assets
rated in the 'CCC' range compared with $34.31 million noted in the
Dec. 2011 trustee report, which was used as a basis for S&P's last
rating actions.

The amount of underlying collateral obligations the transaction
considered defaulted has decreased since Jan. 2012.  According to
the July 2014 monthly report, the transaction holds $1.21 million
in underlying collateral obligations it considers in default
compared with $1.70 million in the Dec. 2011 trustee report.

On a standalone basis, the results of the cash flow analysis point
to higher ratings on the class C, D, and E notes than the rating
actions suggest.  However, the rating on the class C notes is
constrained by the application of the largest obligor default test
at 'A+ (sf)'.  The rating action is in line with that constraint.

The ratings on the class D and E notes are also constrained by the
application of the largest obligor default test at 'BB+ (sf)' and
'B+ (sf)', respectively.  However, S&P believes that as the
transaction is currently in its amortization period, it will
continue to pay down the rated notes, which, all else held equal,
will continue to increase the overcollateralization levels.  In
addition, because the transaction currently has minimal exposure
to 'CCC' rated collateral obligations, S&P believes it is not
currently exposed to large risks that would impair the notes at
their current rating levels.  Therefore, the affirmed ratings
reflect S&P's belief that the credit support available is
commensurate with the current rating levels.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,
based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in the
aforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance.  In
line with our criteria, our cash flow scenarios applied forward-
looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern of
defaults, and recoveries upon default, under various interest rate
and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, our analysis considered
the transaction's ability to pay timely interest and/or ultimate
principal to each of the rated tranches.  The results of the cash
flow analysis demonstrated, in our view, that all of the rated
outstanding classes have adequate credit enhancement available at
the rating levels associated with this rating action," S&P said.

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

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON

Symphony CLO III Ltd.

Class                      December 2011              July 2014
                           Notional balance (mil. $)
A-1a                       204.30                     194.33
A-1b                       22.70                      22.70
A-2a                       75.00                      71.66
A-2b                       1.00                       1.00
B                          24.00                      24.00
C                          22.50                      22.50
D                          18.00                      18.00
E                          11.50                      11.50

Coverage tests and WAS (%)
A/B I/C                    916.01                     873.38
A/B O/C                    125.29                     126.10
C I/C                      827.51                     772.60
C O/C                      117.22                     117.66
D I/C                      733.29                     660.56
D O/C                      111.48                     111.69
WAS                        4.16                       3.22

WAS--Weighted average spread.
O/C--Overcollateralization test.
I/C--Interest coverage test.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Symphony CLO III Ltd.

                             Cash flow    Cash flow
        Previous             implied      cushion    Final
Class   rating               rating       (i)        rating
A-1a    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     16.24%     AAA (sf)
A-1b    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     4.93%      AAA (sf)
A-2a    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     6.68%      AAA (sf)
A-2b    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)     4.95%      AAA (sf)
B       AA- (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)     8.83%      AA+ (sf)
C       A- (sf)/Watch Pos    AA- (sf)     0.60%      A+ (sf)
D       BBB- (sf)            BBB+ (sf)    4.12%      BBB- (sf)
E       BB (sf)              BB+ (sf)     7.05%      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.

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     Corr.        Corr.
        Cash flow   decrease     increase     decrease
        implied     implied      implied      implied     Final
Class   rating      rating       rating       rating      rating
A-1a    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-1b    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2a    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
A-2b    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C       AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)      AA (sf)     A+ (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)    BBB+ (sf)    A- (sf)     BBB- (sf)
E       BB+ (sf)    BB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)     BBB- (sf)   BB (sf)

Corr.--Correlation.

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-1a    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1b    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2a    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2b    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
B       AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)      A+ (sf)       AA+ (sf)
C       AA- (sf)    A+ (sf)       BBB (sf)      A+ (sf)
D       BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)     BB- (sf)      BBB-(sf)
E       BB+ (sf)    BB (sf)       B- (sf)       BB (sf)

RATINGS LIST

Symphony CLO III Ltd.
                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1a    871557AA2    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-1b    871557AC8    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a    871557AE4    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2b    871557AG9    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B       871557AJ3    AA+ (sf)    AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
C       871557AL8    A+ (sf)     A- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       871557AN4    BBB- (sf)   BBB- (sf)
E       871558AA0    BB (sf)     BB (sf)


TELOS CLO 2007-2: Moody's Affirms Ba3 Rating on $16MM Cl. E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's also affirms the ratings on USD 150.2 million of notes
New York, August 15, 2014 -- Moody's Investors Service has
upgraded the ratings on the following notes issued by Telos CLO
2007-2, Ltd.:

$27,500,000 Class B Third Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate
Notes Due 2022, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on May 6, 2013
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf);

$22,000,000 Class C Fourth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2022, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);
previously on May 6, 2013 Upgraded to A3 (sf);

$22,000,000 Class D Fifth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2022, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf);
previously on May 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba1 (sf);

$16,000,000 Class E Sixth Priority Mezzanine Secured Floating
Rate Deferrable Interest Notes Due 2022, Upgraded to Ba2 (sf);
previously on May 6, 2013 Affirmed Ba3 (sf).

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

$241,000,000 Class A-1 First Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes Due 2022 (current outstanding balance $110,249,161.85),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 6, 2013 Affirmed Aaa (sf);

$40,000,000 Class A-2 Second Priority Senior Secured Floating
Rate Notes Due 2022, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 6, 2013
Upgraded to Aaa (sf).

Telos CLO 2007-2, Ltd., issued in June 2007, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans, with significant exposure to middle market loans.
Telos Asset Management LLC (a subsidiary of Tiptree Financial Inc.
(NASDAQ: TIPT)) acts as collateral servicer of Telos CLO 2007-2,
Ltd. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in July 2013.

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 October2013. The Class A-1 notes
have been paid down by approximately 54.3% or $130.8 million since
October 2013. Based on the trustee's July 2014 report, the over-
collateralization (OC) ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D
and Class E notes are reported at 140.27%, 127.98%, 117.66% and
111.15%, respectively, versus October 2013 levels of 129.30%,
120.69%, 113.16% and 108.25%, respectively. The July 2014 OC
ratios do not reflect the $51.2 million payment to the Class A-1
notes on the July 15th payment date.

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 relative to the base case
modeling results, which may be different from the current public
ratings 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% (2474)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3710)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -2

Class D: -2

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 $264.3 million, defaulted
par of $15.5 million, a weighted average default probability of
20.59% (implying a WARF of 3092), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 47.33%, a diversity score of 45 and a weighted
average spread of 3.79%.

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. Moody's generally applies
recovery rates for CLO securities as published in "Moody's
Approach to Rating SF CDOs." In some cases, alternative recovery
assumptions may be considered based on the specifics of the
analysis of the CLO transaction. 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 5.18% of the collateral
pool.


TRALEE CDO I: S&P Affirms 'B+' Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1, A-2a, A-2b, B, and C notes from Tralee CDO I, a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Par-
Four Investment Management LLC.  In addition, S&P removed these
ratings from CreditWatch, where it had placed them with positive
implications on June 18, 2014.  Simultaneously, S&P affirmed its
'B+ (sf)' rating on the class D note from the same transaction.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in April 2014 and it
has started paying down the class A-1 note.  The class A-1 note
received a paydown of about $31 million on the July 16, 2014
payment date, which reduced its balance to $229 million (about 84%
of the original issuance amount).  The class A-1 note balance was
$261 million (about 95.5% of the original issuance) back in May
2012 when S&P last affirmed all of its ratings on the transaction.

During this period, the transaction's credit quality has improved.
Compared to the April 2012 portfolio (that S&P used for its May
2012 affirmations), the July 2014 portfolio has a higher
percentage of assets rated 'BB-' and above, and a lower percentage
of assets rated 'CCC+' and below.  In addition, the weighted
average life of the portfolio has declined during this period.

The transaction's performance has been stable since May 2012, and
defaults continue to be at a low level.  The overcollateralization
ratios (as per the July 2014 monthly trustee report, which were
calculated prior to the July 16 2014 payment date) are at about
the same levels as they were back in April 2012.  S&P expects
these ratios to increase once the recent paydown is factored in.

The improved credit quality and decrease in the weighted average
life are the prime reasons for the decline in S&P's scenario
default rates, which led to the upgrades.  The rating affirmation
on the class D notes reflects the availability of adequate credit
support at the current rating level.

S&P's review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis to
estimate future performance based on the portfolio and transaction
reflected in the trustee report.  In line with S&P's criteria, its
cash flow scenarios applied forward-looking assumptions on the
expected default timing, pattern, and recoveries under various
interest rate and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P's
analysis considered the transaction's ability to pay timely
interest, ultimate principal, or both to each of the rated
tranches.  In S&P's view, the cash flow analysis demonstrated that
all of the rated outstanding classes have adequate credit
enhancement available at the rating levels associated with these
rating actions.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratings
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

Tralee CDO I Ltd.
                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1    AA+(sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    7.80%        AAA (sf)
A-2a   AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    11.25%       AA+ (sf)
A-2b   AA (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    11.25%       AA+ (sf)
B      A (sf)/Watch Pos     AA (sf)     0.09%        AA (sf)
C      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)   3.86%        BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)              B+ (sf)    2 .89%        B+ (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 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 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.

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-2a   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
A-2b   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA (sf)     AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
B      AA (sf)    A+ (sf)    A+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA (sf)
C      BBB+ (sf)  BBB- (sf)  BBB (sf)    A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)    B- (sf)    B+ (sf)     B+ (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)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2a   AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)       AA+ (sf)
A-2b   AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)       AA+ (sf)
B      AA (sf)      AA- (sf)      A- (sf)       AA (sf)
C      BBB+ (sf)    BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)      B+ (sf)       CCC- (sf)     B+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED

Tralee CDO I Ltd.

                   Rating
Class        To              From
A-1          AAA (sf)        AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2a         AA+ (sf)        AA (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2b         AA+ (sf)        AA (sf)/Watch Pos
B            AA (sf)         A (sf)/Watch Pos
C            BBB+ (sf)       BBB (sf)/Watch Pos

RATING AFFIRMED

Tralee CDO I Ltd.

Class        Rating
D            B+ (sf)


TRAPEZA CDO II: Moody's Affirms Caa3 Rating on 2 Note Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Trapeza CDO II, LLC:

$43.5MM Class C-1 Fourth Priority Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2033 (current balance of $47,069,223), Upgraded to B3 (sf);
previously on June 26, 2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review for
Possible Upgrade

$54.8MM Class C-2 Fourth Priority Secured Fixed/Floating Rate
Notes due 2033 (current balance of $59,296,400), Upgraded to B3
(sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa3 (sf) Placed Under Review
for Possible Upgrade

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

$100MM Class A-1B Second Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate
Notes due 2033 (current balance of $29,070,555), Affirmed Aaa
(sf); previously on July 25, 2013 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

$27MM Class B Third Priority Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes
due 2033, Affirmed Aa1 (sf); previously on February 18, 2014
Upgraded to Aa1 (sf)

Trapeza CDO II, LLC, issued in March 2003, is a collateralized
debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust preferred
securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDO methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating
TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect deleveraging
of the Class A-1B notes, an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios, resumption of interest payments of
previously deferring assets and the improvement in the credit
quality of the underlying portfolio since February 2014.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDO methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2) expanding the
default timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted
scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank and
insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated by
Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

In addition, the Class A-1B notes have paid down by approximately
40.7% or $20.0 million since February 2014, using principal
proceeds from the redemption of the underlying assets and the
diversion of excess interest proceeds. As a result, the Class A-1B
notes' par coverage has improved to 516.9% from 306.3% since
February 2014, by Moody's calculations. Based on the trustee's
July 2014 report, the over-collateralization ratio of the Class B
notes was 270.6% (limit 150.5%), versus 191.6% in January 2014 and
that of the Class D notes, 85.0% (limit 104.0%), versus 77.0% in
January 2014. The Class A-1B notes will continue to benefit from
the diversion of excess interest proceeds and the use of proceeds
from redemptions of any assets in the collateral pool.

Moody's also notes that the deal benefited from an improvement in
the credit quality of the underlying portfolio. The weighted
average rating factor (including credit estimate stress) has
improved to 565 from 630 since the last rating action in February
2014, by Moody's calculation. In addition, one bank with a par of
$13.3 million has resumed interest payment on its TruPS. The total
par of securities Moody's assumed to be defaulted has decreased to
$71.7 million from $85.0 million since February 2014.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class C-1
Notes and Class C-2 Notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that
time, Moody's had placed the ratings on review for upgrade as a
result of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par (after
treating deferring securities as performing if they meet certain
criteria) of $150.3 million, defaulted/deferring par of $71.7
million, a weighted average default probability of 5.65% (implying
a WARF of 565), and a weighted average recovery rate upon default
of 10.0%. In addition to the quantitative factors Moody's
explicitly models, qualitative factors are part of rating
committee considerations. Moody's considers the structural
protections in the transaction, the risk of an event of default,
recent deal performance under current market conditions, the legal
environment and specific documentation features. All information
available to rating committees, including macroeconomic forecasts,
inputs from other Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and
judgments regarding the nature and severity of credit stress on
the transactions, can influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs," published in June 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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains TruPS issued by small to medium
sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate publicly. To
evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not have public
ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric model developed
by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores. Moody's evaluation
of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors in the pool relies
on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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
ratings 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 345)

Class A-1B: 0

Class B: +1

Class C-1: +1

Class C-2: +1

Class D: 0

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 878)

Class A-1B: 0

Class B: 0

Class C-1: -1

Class C-2: -1

Class D: 0


US CAPITAL FUNDING: Moody's Hikes Ratings on 2 Notes to B3
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by U.S. Capital Funding I, Ltd.:

$100,000,000 Class A-1 Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2034
(current balance of $40,748,062.14), Upgraded to Aa3 (sf);
previously on August 19, 2013 Affirmed A2 (sf)

$24,000,000 Class A-2 Floating Rate Senior Notes Due 2034,
Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Baa2 (sf) Placed
Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$45,000,000 Class B-1 Floating Rate Senior Subordinate Notes Due
2034, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014 Caa1 (sf)
Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

$24,000,000 Class B-2 Fixed/ Floating Rate Senior Subordinate
Notes Due 2034, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on June 26, 2014
Caa1 (sf) Placed Under Review for Possible Upgrade

Capital Funding I, Ltd., issued in February 2004, is a
collateralized debt obligation backed by a portfolio of bank trust
preferred securities (TruPS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of updates to Moody's
TruPS CDO methodology, as described in "Moody's Approach to Rating
TruPS CDOs" published in June 2014. They also reflect deleveraging
of the Class A-1 notes, the resumption of interest payments by a
previously deferring asset, and an increase in the transaction's
over-collateralization ratios.

The transaction has benefited from the updates to Moody's TruPS
CDO methodology, including (1) removing the 25% macro default
probability stress for bank and insurance TruPS; (2) expanding the
default timing profiles from one to six probability-weighted
scenarios; (3) incorporating a redemption profile for bank and
insurance TruPS; (4) using a loss distribution generated by
Moody's CDOROM(TM) for deals that do not permit reinvestment; (5)
giving full par credit to deferring bank TruPS that meet certain
criteria; and (6) raising the assumed recovery rate for insurance
TruPS.

In addition, the Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
3.6% or $1.5 million since August 2013, using the diversion of
excess interest proceeds. Further, the total par amount that
Moody's treated as having defaulted or deferring declined to $19
million from $22 million in August 2013, because one previously
deferring bank with a par of $3 million resumed making interest
payments on its TruPS. As a result, the Class A-1 notes' par
coverage has improved to 326.89% from 308.09% since August 2013,
by Moody's calculations. Based on the trustee's July 2014 report,
the over-collateralization ratio of the Class A notes was 205.50%
(limit 125.0%), and that of the Class B notes, 99.68% (limit
102.15%), versus 179.50% and 96.24% in August 2013 respectively.
The Class A-1 notes will continue to benefit from the diversion of
excess interest and the use of proceeds from redemptions of any
assets in the collateral pool.

In taking the foregoing actions, Moody's also announced that it
had concluded its review of its ratings on the issuer's Class A-2,
B-1 and B-2 notes announced on June 26, 2014. At that time,
Moody's had placed the ratings on review for upgrade as a result
of the aforementioned methodology updates.

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, and weighted average recovery
rate, are based on its methodology and could differ from the
trustee's reported numbers. In its base case, Moody's analyzed the
underlying collateral pool has having a performing par of $133.2
million, defaulted/deferring par of $19 million, a weighted
average default probability of 6.14% (implying a WARF of 627), and
a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 10%. In addition
to the quantitative factors Moody's explicitly models, qualitative
factors are part of rating committee considerations. Moody's
considers the structural protections in the transaction, the risk
of an event of default, recent deal performance under current
market conditions, the legal environment and specific
documentation features. All information available to rating
committees, including macroeconomic forecasts, inputs from other
Moody's analytical groups, market factors, and judgments regarding
the nature and severity of credit stress on the transactions, can
influence the final rating decision.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating TruPS CDOs" published in June 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, as described below:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: TruPS CDOs performance could be
negatively affected by uncertainty about credit conditions in the
general economy. Moody's has a stable outlook on the US banking
sector.

2) Portfolio credit risk: Credit performance of the assets
collateralizing the transaction that is better than Moody's
current expectations could have a positive impact on the
transaction's performance. Conversely, asset credit performance
weaker than Moody's current expectations could have adverse
consequences on the transaction's performance.

3) Deleveraging: One source of uncertainty in this transaction is
whether deleveraging from unscheduled principal proceeds and
excess interest proceeds will continue and at what pace. Note
repayments that are faster than Moody's current expectations could
have a positive impact on the notes' ratings, beginning with the
notes with the highest payment priority.

4) Resumption of interest payments by deferring assets: A number
of banks have resumed making interest payments on their TruPS. The
timing and amount of deferral cures could have significant
positive impact on the transaction's over-collateralization ratios
and the ratings on the notes.

5) Exposure to non-publicly rated assets: The deal contains a
large number of securities whose default probability Moody's
assesses through credit scores derived using RiskCalc(TM) or
credit estimates. Because these are not public ratings, they are
subject to additional uncertainties.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's applied a Monte Carlo simulation framework in Moody's
CDOROM(TM) v.2.13.1 to model the loss distribution for TruPS CDOs.
The simulated defaults and recoveries for each of the Monte Carlo
scenarios defined the reference pool's loss distribution. Moody's
then used the loss distribution as an input in its CDOEdge(TM)
cash flow model. CDOROM(TM) v. 2.13.1 is available on
www.moodys.com under Products and Solutions -- Analytical models,
upon receipt of a signed free license agreement.

The portfolio of this CDO contains of TruPS issued by small to
medium sized U.S. community banks that Moody's does not rate
publicly. To evaluate the credit quality of bank TruPS that do not
have public ratings, Moody's uses RiskCalc(TM), an econometric
model developed by Moody's Analytics, to derive credit scores.
Moody's evaluation of the credit risk of most of the bank obligors
in the pool relies on FDIC Q1-2014 financial data.

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
ratings 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):

Assuming a two-notch upgrade to assets with below-investment grade
ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 408)

Class A-1: +1

Class A-2: +2

Class B-1: +2

Class B-2: +2

Assuming a two-notch downgrade to assets with below-investment
grade ratings or rating estimates (WARF of 917)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B-1: -1

Class B-2: -1


WACHOVIA BANK 2003-C7: S&P Lowers Rating on Class H Certs to D
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its rating on the class
H commercial mortgage pass-through certificates from Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust's series 2003-C7, a U.S. commercial
mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) transaction, to 'D (sf)' from
'CCC- (sf)'.

"We lowered our rating to 'D (sf)' on the class H certificates
following principal losses detailed in the July 15, 2014, trustee
remittance report.  The principal losses reported on the
certificate classes totaled $21.2 million, which primarily
resulted from the liquidation of the Columbia Place Mall loan that
was with the special servicer, Torchlight Loan Services LLC.
According to the July 2014 trustee remittance report, the asset
liquidated at a loss severity of 89.7% ($22.9 million in principal
losses) of its beginning scheduled trust balance of $25.5 million.
Consequently, class H experienced a 72.7% loss of its $15.2
million original principal balance, while the subordinate class J
lost 100% of its respective opening balance.  We previously
lowered our rating on class J to 'D (sf)'," S&P said.


WACHOVIA CRE 2006-1: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to B-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on 10
classes from Wachovia CRE CDO 2006-1 Ltd., a commercial real
estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO) transaction.

The upgrades reflect S&P's analysis of the transaction's liability
structure and the collateral's underlying credit characteristics,
using S&P's global CDOs of pooled structured finance assets
criteria, its U.S. and Canadian commercial mortgage-backed
securities (CMBS) rating methodology and assumptions, and S&P's
CMBS global property evaluation methodology.  S&P also considered
the transaction's significant paydowns during the amortization
period.  As of the June 25, 2014, note valuation report, classes
A-1B and A-2B were paid off fully, down from balances of $68.5
million and $145.0 million, respectively, at issuance.  Class B
has a current outstanding balance of $34.6 million, down from
$53.3 million at issuance.  Overall, the transaction's liabilities
have been paid down by 76.4% since issuance.

According to the July 17, 2014, trustee monthly report, the
transaction's collateral, excluding the $25.8 million cash
balance, totaled $346.2 million, while the transaction's
liabilities totaled $306.3 million, down from $1.3 billion in
liabilities at issuance.  The transaction's current asset pool
includes the following:

   -- Nineteen whole loans and senior participation loans ($327.3
      million, 94.6%);

   -- One CMBS tranche ($10.0 million, 2.9%); and

   -- Two subordinate B-notes ($8.9 million, 2.5%).

The trustee report noted one defaulted loan totaling $5.5 million
(1.6%)--the Ashford Crossing whole loan.  According to the
collateral manager, the loan has since been paid off after its
July 1, 2014, maturity date.

Using loan performance information provided by the collateral
manager, S&P determined asset-specific recovery rates in its
analysis of the mortgage loans ($336.2 million, 97.1%) using S&P's
U.S. and Canadian CMBS rating methodology and assumptions and its
CMBS global property evaluation methodology.

S&P's analysis also considered qualitative factors, such as the
loans' near-term maturities over the next couple of years,
refinancing prospects, and loan modifications.

According to the July 17, 2014, trustee report, the deal passed
all of its overcollateralization and interest coverage tests.

RATINGS LIST

Wachovia CRE CDO 2006-1 Ltd.
                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
B       92978CAB4    AA+ (sf)    BB (sf)
C       92978CAC2    A+ (sf)     B+ (sf)
D       92978CAD0    BBB+ (sf)   B (sf)
E       92978CAE8    BBB (sf)    B (sf)
F       92978CAF5    BBB- (sf)   B- (sf)
G       92978CAG3    BB+ (sf)    CCC+ (sf)
H       92978CAH1    B+ (sf)     CCC- (sf)
J       92978CAJ7    B (sf)      CCC- (sf)
K       92978CAK4    B- (sf)     CCC- (sf)
L       92978CAL2    B- (sf)     CCC- (sf)


WELLS FARGO 2010-C1: Fitch Affirms 'Bsf' Rating on Class F Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed eight classes of Wells Fargo Bank
N.A.'s commercial mortgage pass-through certificates series 2010-
C1.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations reflect stable portfolio performance since
issuance.  There are no specially serviced or delinquent loans.
The pool has experienced no realized losses to date.  Fitch has
designated two loans (1.7% of the pool) as Fitch Loans of Concern
(FLOC).

As of the August 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 5.5% to $695.2 million from
$735.9 million at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, one loan
(0.9% of the pool) is defeased.

The largest loan in the pool (25.1% of the pool) is secured by a
portfolio of 14 properties which consist of seven office
buildings, five industrial distribution centers, one data center
and one R&D facility.  The properties are located in various
states and are all single-tenant properties with a combined size
of 3.6 million square feet.  The portfolio has maintained
occupancy greater than 97% for the past three years.

The second-largest loan in the pool (7.4% of the pool) is secured
by a regional mall located in Watertown, NY, which is anchored by
Sear's, Burlington Coat Factory, and Gander Mountain.  As of March
2014, occupancy had rebounded to 95.3% from 88.2% at year-end (YE)
2012, and 93.6% at issuance.  No more than 4% in lease rollover is
expected for the remainder of 2014 and 2015.

The largest FLOC (1.1% of the pool) is secured by a 115-unit
student housing complex located near Western Michigan University
in Kalamazoo, Michigan.  The one-year leases generally commence in
August of each year.  The servicer noted market conditions have
been negatively impacted by lower enrollment at the University.
The servicer-reported debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) and
occupancy have declined to 0.55x and 80.7% respectively as of YE
2013, compared to 0.80x with 91.30% at YE 2012.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable.  No rating
actions are expected unless there are material changes to property
occupancies or cash flows, increased delinquencies, or loans
transferred to special servicing.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $121.3 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $443.3 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $563.6 million class X-A* at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $22.1 million class B at 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $31.3 million class C at 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $34 million class D at 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $13.8 million class E at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $12.9 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

(*) interest only.

Fitch does not rate the $16,557,805 class G certificates or the
$130,617,805 interest only class X-B.


WELLS FARGO 2012-LC5: Fitch Affirms 'BBsf' Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 12 classes of Wells Fargo Commercial
Mortgage Trust 2012-LC5 commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates, series 2012-LC5.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of the
underlying collateral pool.  The pool has no specially serviced or
delinquent loans as of the July 2014 distribution date.  The
pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 2.1% to
$1.25 billion from $1.28 billion at issuance.  There are six loans
on the servicer watchlist, mainly due to tenant and leasing
issues.

One of the largest watchlist loans (0.7% of the pool) is secured
by a 29,369 square foot (sf) retail property located in San
Francisco, CA.  The subject is entirely leased to two tenants:
Walgreens (48% net rentable area [NRA]) and 24 Hour Fitness (52%
NRA).  The 24 Hour Fitness lease expires in September 2014 and the
servicer has not obtained a lease update from the borrower.  The
property is situated in a favorable location on Market Street,
therefore should 24 Hour Fitness not renew, Fitch expects the
borrower would be able to re-tenant the space.

The largest loan in the pool (12.1% of the pool) is The Westside
Pavilion, a 755,448 sf, three-level urban mall, 535,448 sf of
which serves as the collateral for the loan.  The property is
located in Los Angeles, CA and anchored by Macy's (non-
collateral), Macy's Home, Nordstrom, and Landmark Theatres.
Performance has remained stable since issuance; as of year end
(YE) 2013, the subject was 98% occupied with a 1.81x net operating
income (NOI) debt service coverage ratio (DSCR).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on all classes remain Stable.  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
overall portfolio-level metrics.  Additional information on rating
sensitivity is available in the 'Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage
Trust 2012-LC5' New Issue report.

Fitch affirms the following classes as indicated:

   -- $54.5 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $156.2 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $556.7 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $100 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $991,934,053* class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $118,138,000* class X-B 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $124.5 million class A-S at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $76.6 million class B at 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $41.5 million class C at 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $49.5 million class D at 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $20.8 million class E at 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $23.9 million class F at 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

*Notional amount and interest only.

Fitch does not rate the class G certificates.


WINTER GARDEN: S&P Lowers Rating on 1994 Revenue Bonds to 'CC'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term rating on
Winter Garden Housing Finance Corp., Texas' series 1994 single-
family mortgage revenue bonds to 'CC' from 'B-'.  The outlook is
stable.  The bonds are secured by Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed
securities and Fannie Mae passthrough certificates.

"The action is based on our view of the insufficiency of revenues
from mortgage debt service payments and investment earnings to pay
full and timely debt service on the bonds plus fees, and an asset-
to-liability ratio of approximately 97.99% as of March 1, 2014,"
said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Jose Cruz.

Standard & Poor's has analyzed available updated financial
information.  As of March 1, 2014, total assets available to pay
debt service on the bonds were approximately $1.144 million while
total liabilities were approximately $1.168 million, resulting in
an asset-to-liability position of approximately 97.99%.  In
addition, if the security prepays, it is our opinion that assets
are insufficient to cover the reinvestment risk based on the 30-
day minimum notice period required for special redemptions.


* S&P Lowers Rating on 17 Classes from 99 U.S. RMBS Transactions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, in an Aug. 19, 2014 ratings
release, lowered its ratings to 'D (sf)' on 17 classes from 14
U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions
and placed its ratings on 109 classes from 85 additional U.S. RMBS
transactions on CreditWatch with negative implications.

The downgrades reflect S&P's assessment of the interest shortfalls
that the affected classes incurred during recent remittance
periods and S&P's belief that it is unlikely the certificate
holders will be reimbursed.  Before the rating actions, S&P rated
each of these classes either 'CCC (sf)' or 'CC (sf)'.

The CreditWatch placements reflect that the trustee reported
potential interest shortfalls on the affected classes in recent
remittance periods, which could negatively affect S&P's ratings on
those classes.  After verifying these possible interest
shortfalls, S&P will adjust the ratings as it considers
appropriate according to its criteria.

These transactions are supported by mixed collateral of fixed- and
adjustable-rate mortgage loans.  A combination of subordination,
excess spread, and overcollateralization (where applicable)
provide credit enhancement for all of the transactions in this
review.


* S&P Withdraws Ratings on 30 Classes From 18 CDO Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services withdrew its ratings on 16
classes from 12 cash flow (CF) collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) transactions, four classes from three CF CDOs backed by
commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), one class from one
CF CDO backed predominately by residential mortgage-backed
securities (RMBS), seven classes from one CF trust preferred CDO
transaction, and two classes from one CF CDO re tranche
transaction.

The withdrawals follow the complete paydown of the notes as
reflected in the most recent trustee-issued note payment reports:

   -- Anthracite CDO I Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most tranches
      paid down, other rated tranche still outstanding;

   -- Apidos CDO I (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down, other
      rated tranches still outstanding

   -- Apidos CLO XVI (CF CLO): class X notes(i) paid down, other
      rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Avenue CLO Fund Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Avenue CLO III Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Cent CLO 20 Ltd. (CF CLO): class X notes(i) paid down, other
      rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Crest 2004-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of CMBS): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Denali Capital CLO V Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- FM Leveraged Capital Fund II (CF CLO): last remaining rated
      tranche paid down;

   -- Gannett Peak CLO I Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranches paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Harch CLO III Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Hewett's Island CLO IV Ltd. (CF CLO): last remaining rated
      tranches paid down;

   -- I-Preferred Term Securities III Ltd. (CF Trust Preferred
      CDO): optional redemption in August 2014;

   -- Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2004-RR2 (CF CDO of CMBS):
      senior-most tranche paid down, other rated tranches still
      outstanding;

   -- Saratoga Investment Corp. CLO 2013-1 Ltd. (CF CLO): class X
      notes(i) paid down, other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Southfork CLO Ltd. (CF CLO): senior-most tranche paid down,
      other rated tranches still outstanding;

   -- Stack 2004-1 Ltd. (CF CDO of RMBS): senior-most tranche paid
      down, other rated tranches still outstanding; and

   -- Structured Investments Corp.Series 82 (CF CDO retranche):
      last remaining rated tranches paid down.

(i) An "X note" within a CLO is generally a note with a principal
    balance intended to be repaid early in the CLO's life using
    interest proceeds from the CLO's waterfall.

RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Anthracite CDO I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
E                   NR                  B+ (sf)/Watch POS
E-FL                NR                  B+ (sf)/Watch POS

Apidos CDO I
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Apidos CLO XVI
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Avenue CLO Fund Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-3L                NR                  AA+ (sf)

Avenue CLO III Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A1L                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Cent CLO 20 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Crest 2004-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  BBB (sf)

Denali Capital CLO V Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
B                   NR                  AAA (sf)

FM Leveraged Capital Fund II
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
E                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)/Watch Pos

Gannett Peak CLO I Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1a                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-1b                NR                  AAA (sf)
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Harch CLO III Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-1                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Hewett's Island CLO IV Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
D-1                 NR                  A+ (sf)
D-2                 NR                  A+ (sf)
E                   NR                  B+ (sf)

I-Preferred Term Securities III Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  A+ (sf)
A-3                 NR                  A+ (sf)
A-4                 NR                  A+ (sf)
B-1                 NR                  CCC+ (sf)
B-2                 NR                  CCC+ (sf)
B-3                 NR                  CCC+ (sf)
C                   NR                  CCC- (sf)

Morgan Stanley Capital I Trust 2004-RR2
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
E                   NR                  BBB+ (sf)

Saratoga Investment Corp. CLO 2013-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
X                   NR                  AAA (sf)

Southfork CLO Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A-2                 NR                  AAA (sf)

Stack 2004-1 Ltd.
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  BB+ (sf)

Structured Investments Corp. Series 82
                            Rating
Class               To                  From
A                   NR                  BB+ (sf)
B                   NR                  CCC+ (sf)

NR--not rated.



                             *********

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 ***