TCR_Public/141005.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, October 5, 2014, Vol. 18, No. 277

                            Headlines

ACE SECURITIES: Moody's Lowers Rating on 4 Note Classes to C
ALESCO PREFERRED XII: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. A-2 Notes to BB+
ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN 2007-1: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. D Notes
ANTHRACITE CDO III: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on 7 Note Classes
APIDOS QUATTRO: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. E Notes to Ba1

AVIATION CAPITAL: S&P Puts A-1 Notes' CCC+ Rating on Watch Neg.
BABSON CLO 2014-III: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating on Cl. F Notes
BANC OF AMERICA 2006-3: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 11 Notes
BLACK DIAMOND 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
CIFC FUNDING 2006-I: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on B-2L Notes

COLUMBUSNOVA 2006-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes From BB
COLUMBUSNOVA 2007-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes From BB
COMM 2012-CCRE3: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. G Certificates
COMMODORE CDO III: Moody's Ups Ratings on 2 Note Classes to Caa3
DIVERSIFIED ASSET II: Moody's Hikes Rating on $30MM Notes to Caa3

EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2014-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on E Notes
FRASER SULLIVAN II: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'B+'
GMAC COMMERCIAL 2002-C2: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. O Certs
I-PREFERRED SECURITIES IV: S&P Raises Cl. C Notes' Rating to B-

INCAPS FUNDING I: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'BB-'
INCAPS FUNDING II: S&P Raises Rating on Class C Notes to CCC+
INWOOD PARK: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
JASPER CLO: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on 2 Note Classes
JMP CLO III: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on $18.3MM Class E Notes

JPMBB 2014-C23: Moody's Assigns B1 Rating on Class UH5 Notes
JPMBB 2014-C24: Fitch to Rate 2 Certificate Classes 'Bsf'
JP MORGAN 2014-PHH: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes
MERRILL LYNCH 2005-LC1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Certs
MORGAN STANLEY 2013-C12: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on G Notes

NORTEL NETWORKS: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on 2001-1 Certificates
PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
PREFERRED TERM XVIII: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to B+
REALT 2014-1: Fitch Rates Class G Certificates 'Bsf'
SASCO 2005-S7: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class M1 Debt to Ca

SOUTHFORK CLO: S&P Raises Rating on Class C Notes From 'BB+'
SUFFIELD CLO: Fitch Withdraws Dsf Ratings on 3 Note Classes
TOYS 'R' US 2001-31: Moody's Cuts Cl. A-1 Certs Rating to Caa1
VENTURE VII: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $11.4MM Cl. E Notes


                             *********

ACE SECURITIES: Moody's Lowers Rating on 4 Note Classes to C
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of six
tranches and upgraded the ratings of two tranches from four
subprime RMBS transactions backed by Subprime mortgage loans.

Complete rating action is as follows:

Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-
HE4

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-
HE1

Cl. A-1, Downgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-
WM1

Cl. A-2A, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 19, 2013
Downgraded to Ca (sf)

Cl. A-2B, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Cl. A-2C, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Cl. A-2D, Downgraded to C (sf); previously on Apr 14, 2010
Confirmed at Ca (sf)

Issuer: Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2005-R3

Cl. M-4, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Feb 26, 2013 Affirmed
Caa1 (sf)

Cl. M-5, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Feb 26, 2013
Affirmed Caa3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating actions reflect recent performance of the underlying
pools and Moody's updated loss expectations on the pools. The
ratings upgraded are a result of improving performance of the
related pools and/or improving credit enhancement on the bonds due
to continued availability of spread and failure of performance
triggers. The ratings downgradesd are a result of structural
features resulting in higher expected losses for the bonds than
previously anticipated.

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

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

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 6.1% in August 2014 from 7.2%
in August 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.


ALESCO PREFERRED XII: S&P Raises Rating on Cl. A-2 Notes to BB+
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
X, A-1, and A-2 notes from Alesco Preferred Funding XII Ltd., a
collateralized debt obligation (CDO) transaction backed by trust-
preferred securities (TruPS) issued mainly by financial
institutions, and removed them from CreditWatch, where S&P placed
them with positive implications on July 2, 2014.  At the same
time, S&P affirmed its 'AA+p (sf)' rating on the class P-1 combo
notes.

The upgrades reflect paydowns to the class A-1 and X notes and the
improved credit support available to the notes since S&P's March
2013 rating actions.  Since then, the transaction has paid down
the class A-1 and X notes by approximately $34.89 million and
$2.50 million, respectively, leaving the notes at 74.97% and
37.50% of their original balances.  The paydowns to the class A-1
notes came from principal proceeds as well as interest proceeds
captured because the transaction's coverage tests failed.

The upgrades also reflect the improved overcollateralization (O/C)
available to the notes, mainly because of the aforementioned
paydowns, since S&P's March 2013 rating actions.  The trustee
reported these increased O/C ratios in the August 2014 report:

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 126.69%, up from 116.28% in the
      Feb. 2013 report, which S&P used for its March 2013 rating
      actions;

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 106.27%, up from 98.42% in
      Feb. 2013;

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 90.22%, up from 84.85% in
      Feb. 2013; and

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 83.76%, up from 79.37% in Feb.
      2013.

The upgrades further reflect the declining amount of nonperforming
assets since S&P's last rating actions.  According the to the
August 2014 trustee report, there were $68.30 million in defaulted
and deferring securities, down from the $95.30 million cited in
the Feb. 2013 report.

S&P affirmed its 'AA+p (sf)' rating on the class P-1 combo notes
to reflect its rating on the underlying U.S. treasury separate
trading of registered interest and principal securities (STRIPS).

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
further rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LIST

Alesco Preferred Funding XII Ltd.
                               Rating
Class             Identifier   To           From
A-1               01450DAB0    BBB (sf)     BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
X                 01450DAA2    AA (sf)      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2               01450DAC8    BB+ (sf)     B- (sf)/Watch Pos
P-1 combo         01449VAA6    AA+p (sf)    AA+p (sf)

Note: The 'p' subscript indicates that the rating addresses only
the principal portion of the obligation.


ALLIANCE BERNSTEIN 2007-1: S&P Affirms B+ Rating on Cl. D Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1b, A-2, B, and C notes from ABCLO 2007-1 Ltd., a cash flow
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by
Alliance Bernstein L.P.  At the same time, S&P removed these
ratings from CreditWatch, where it had placed them with positive
implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  S&P also affirmed its ratings on
the class A-1a and D notes.

The upgrades mainly reflect the increased credit support following
the $76.8 million in paydowns to the class A-1a notes since S&P's
March 2014 rating actions.  According to the Sept. 2014 trustee
report, the class A-1a notes have about 29% of their original
balance remaining.  The paydowns improved all of the tranches'
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios as reflected in the Sept. 2014
monthly trustee report:

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 151.03%, up from 130.35% in
      Feb. 2014.

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 128.92%, up from 118.54% in
      Feb. 2014.

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 117.17%, up from 111.62% in
      Feb. 2014.

   -- The class D O/C ratio was 107.93%, up from 105.81% in
      Feb. 2014.

S&P's rating on the class C notes is driven by its largest obligor
default test, a supplemental stress test that addresses the
potential concentration of exposure to obligors in the
transaction's portfolio by assessing the effect of several of the
largest obligors defaulting simultaneously.  Although S&P's cash
flow analysis indicated a higher rating, the class C notes can
only pass the largest obligor default test at the 'BBB' rating
category.

S&P's affirmations on the class A-1a and D notes reflect the
availability of adequate credit support at the 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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

ABCLO 2007-1 Ltd.

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1a   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    32.75%       AAA (sf)
A-1b   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    23.11%       AAA (sf)
A-2    AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    10.65%       AAA (sf)
B      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    6.58%        AA+ (sf)
C      BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos  A- (sf)     1.63%        BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)              B+ (sf)     2.93%        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   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-2    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
C      A- (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-1a   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-1b   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AA+ (sf)      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA- (sf)      AA+ (sf)
C      A- (sf)      BBB+ (sf)     BB+ (sf)      BBB+ (sf)
D      B+ (sf)      B+ (sf)       CCC- (sf)     B+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

ABCLO 2007-1 Ltd.

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

ABCLO 2007-1 Ltd.

Class        Rating
A-1a         AAA (sf)
D            B+ (sf)


ANTHRACITE CDO III: Fitch Affirms Csf Rating on 7 Note Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings upgrades two and affirms nine classes of Anthracite
CDO III Ltd./Corp. (Anthracite CDO III).

KEY RATING DRIVERS:

The upgrades are the result of significant amortization of the
capital structure.  Since the October 2013 rating action, the
transaction has received $66 million in paydowns, which has
resulted in the full repayment of the class A notes and partial
paydowns to the class B-FL and B-FX notes.  Over this same period,
approximately 46.8% of the collateral has been upgraded and only
0.5% of the collateral has been downgraded.  Currently, 60.6% of
the portfolio has a Fitch-derived rating below investment grade
and 29.9% has a rating in the 'CCC' category and below, compared
to 70.1% and 46.3%, respectively, at the last rating action.  All
hedges were terminated as of the August 2014 payment date.

This transaction was analyzed under the framework described in the
report 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' using
the Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) for projecting future default
levels for the underlying portfolio.  The default levels were then
compared to the breakeven levels generated by Fitch's cash flow
model of the CDO under the various default timing and interest
rate stress scenarios, as described in the same report.  Fitch
also analyzed the structure's sensitivity to the assets that are
distressed, experiencing interest shortfalls, and those with near-
term maturities.  Based on this analysis, the breakeven rates for
the class B-FL and B-FX notes are generally consistent with the
ratings assigned below.  The class C-FL and C-FX notes are passing
above their current rating category; however, a further upgrade
was not warranted given the increased portfolio concentration and
adverse selection.  Approximately 69% of the portfolio is
classified as defaulted or credit impaired by the trustee.

For the class D through H notes, Fitch analyzed the sensitivity of
each class to the default of the distressed assets ('CCC' and
below).  Given the high probability of default of these assets and
expected limited recovery prospects upon default, these classes
were affirmed at 'Csf', indicating that default is inevitable.

RATING SENSITIVITIES:

The Stable Outlook on the class B-FL and B-FX notes reflects the
expectation that the transaction will continue to delever.  Strong
recoveries are expected on the class C-FL and C-FX notes and
future upgrades are possible with continued expected performance.
In addition to those sensitivities discussed above, further
negative migration and defaults beyond those projected by SF PCM
as well as increasing concentration in assets of a weaker credit
quality could lead to downgrades.

Anthracite CDO III is a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that
closed on March 30, 2004.  Currently, the portfolio is comprised
of 20 assets from 13 obligors of which 83.1% are commercial
mortgage backed securities (CMBS) and 16.9% credit tenant leases
(CTL) classified as commercial real estate loans (CREL).

Fitch has taken these actions:

   -- $7,286,369 class B-FL notes upgraded to 'Asf'; from 'Bsf';
      Outlook Stable;
   -- $3,881,746 class B-FX notes upgraded to 'Asf' from 'Bsf';
      Outlook Stable;
   -- $24,727,000 class C-FL notes affirmed at 'CCCsf';
   -- $2,500,000 class C-FX notes affirmed at 'CCCsf';
   -- $14,553,444 class D-FL notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $11,882,954 class D-FX notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $11,464,365 class E-FL notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $32,672,850 class E-FX notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $28,783,983 class F notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $8,574,406 class G notes affirmed at 'Csf';
   -- $16,656,157 class H notes affirmed at 'Csf'.

Class A has paid in full.  Fitch does not rate the Preferred
Shares.


APIDOS QUATTRO: Moody's Hikes Rating on Cl. E Notes to Ba1
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Apidos Quattro CDO:

$16,000,000 Class C Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due January 20,
2019, Upgraded to Aa1 (sf); previously on April 21, 2014
Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

$14,000,000 Class D Deferrable Mezzanine Notes Due January 20,
2019, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on April 21, 2014 Upgraded
to Baa1 (sf)

$12,000,000 Class E Deferrable Junior Notes Due January 20,
2019, Upgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on April 21, 2014
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

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

$262,000,000 Class A Senior Notes Due January 20, 2019 (current
outstanding rated balance of $128,864,583), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
previously on April 21, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$21,000,000 Class B Senior Notes Due January 20, 2019, Affirmed
Aaa (sf); previously on April 21, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

Apidos Quattro CDO, issued in October 2006, is a collateralized
loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior
secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in
January 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 the last rating action in April
2014. The Class A notes have been paid down by approximately 19%
or $31 million since the last rating action in April 2014. Based
on the trustee's August 2014 report, the over-collateralization
(OC) ratios for the Class B, D and E notes are reported at
140.86%, 117.37% and 110.00%, respectively, versus March 2014
levels of 134.14%, 115.05% and 108.80%, respectively.

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

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

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conducted
sensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of default
probabilities on the rated notes 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% (1944)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +1

Class D: +2

Class E: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2916)

Class A: 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 $211 million, defaulted par
of $1.2 million, a weighted average default probability of 13.21%
(implying a WARF of 2430), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 50.03%, a diversity score of 44 and a weighted average
spread of 2.87%.

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.


AVIATION CAPITAL: S&P Puts A-1 Notes' CCC+ Rating on Watch Neg.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services placed its 'CCC+ (sf)' rating
on class A-1 from Aviation Capital Group Trust's series 2000-1 on
CreditWatch with negative implications.  Aviation Capital Group
Trust's series 2000-1 is an asset-backed securities (ABS)
transaction collateralized primarily by the lease revenue and
sales proceeds from a commercial aircraft portfolio.

The negative CreditWatch placement reflects the significant
increase in the class A-1 notes' loan-to-value (LTV) ratio to 195%
as of Sept. 15, 2014, from 130% as of June 15, 2014, as a result
of the recent sale of two aircraft and the updated annual aircraft
appraised values.

Since the June 15, 2014, payment date, the issuer has sold two
aircraft for significantly less than their respective appraised
value.  In addition, the annual updated appraisal (as of Aug. 15,
2014) shows a substantial decline in aircraft value, especially on
the Boeing 737 Classics.

The fleet in Aviation Capital Group Trust's portfolio is
concentrated in older aircraft that were manufactured in the
1980s, some of which, in S&P's view, are likely to become
economically obsolete earlier than expected.

S&P will resolve the CreditWatch placement after it completes its
comprehensive review of the transaction.


BABSON CLO 2014-III: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating on Cl. F Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has assigned the
following provisional ratings to notes to be issued by Babson CLO
Ltd. 2014-III:

$4,000,000 Class X Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class X Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$426,250,000 Class A Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class A Notes"), Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

$59,000,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B-1 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$30,000,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Term Notes due 2026 (the
"Class B-2 Notes"), Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

$54,500,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

$37,500,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Mezzanine Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

$36,250,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Junior Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

$14,000,000 Class F Secured Deferrable Junior Term Notes due
2026 (the "Class F Notes"), Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

Moody's issues provisional ratings in advance of the final sale of
financial instruments, but these ratings only represent Moody's
preliminary credit opinions. Upon a conclusive review of a
transaction and associated documentation, Moody's will endeavor to
assign definitive ratings. A definitive rating (if any) may differ
from a provisional rating.

Ratings Rationale

Moody's provisional ratings of the Class X Notes, Class A Notes,
the Class B-1 Notes, the Class B-2 Notes, the Class C Notes, the
Class D Notes, the Class E Notes, and the Class F Notes
(collectively, the "Rated Notes") address the expected losses
posed to the holders of the Rated Notes. The provisional ratings
reflect the risks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of
loans, the transaction's legal structure, and the characteristics
of the underlying assets.

Babson CLO 2014-III is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes
will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien
senior secured corporate loans. At least 92.5% of the portfolio
must be invested in senior secured loans, cash and eligible
investments and up to 7.50% of the portfolio may consist of second
lien loans and unsecured loans. The underlying collateral pool is
expected to be approximately 90% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

Par amount of $700,000,000

Diversity of 58

WARF of 2765

Weighted Average Spread of 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon of 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate of 47.0%

Weighted Average Life of 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2765 to 3180)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: 0

Class B-1 Notes: -1

Class B-2 Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Class F Notes: -1

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2765 to 3595)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class X Notes: 0

Class A Notes: -1

Class B-1 Notes: -2

Class B-2 Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -4

Class D Notes: -2

Class E Notes: -1

Class F Notes: -3

The V Score for this transaction is Medium/High. Moody's assigned
this V Score 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, available on
www.moodys.com.

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


BANC OF AMERICA 2006-3: Fitch Affirms 'Dsf' Rating on 11 Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded two classes and affirmed 13 classes
of Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc. (BACM) commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates series 2006-3 due to increased
expected losses on the specially serviced loans and performance
declines in many of the performing loans.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch modeled losses of 12.7% of the remaining pool; expected
losses on the original pool balance total 16.3%, including $133.6
million (6.8% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to
date.  Fitch has designated 29 loans (49.4%) as Fitch Loans of
Concern, which includes nine specially serviced assets (15%).

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 25.4% to $1.47 billion from
$1.96 billion at issuance.  Per the servicer reporting, two loans
(8.2% of the pool) are defeased.  Interest shortfalls are
currently affecting classes A-J through P.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the specially-
serviced Rushmore Mall loan (6.4% of the pool), which is secured
by a 737,725-sf regional mall located in Rapid City, SD.  The loan
transferred to special servicing in July 2011.  A modification is
in the process of being finalized.  As of YE 2013 in-line sales
fell to approximately $304 psf from $321 at YE 2012 and $336 at
issuance.

The second largest contributor to expected losses is the Phoenix
Airport Marriott loan (4.1%), which is secured by a 345-room hotel
located in Phoenix, AZ, approximately 1.5 miles from the Phoenix
International Airport.  The property faces strong market
competition and has been underperforming.  The servicer-reported
trailing 12 months (TTM) June 2013 NCF debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) was 0.71x, compared with 1.44x at issuance.  The property
began to suffer during the economic downturn and has not
recovered.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the Republic
Place loan (6.3%), which is secured by a 10-story, 213,475-sf
office building located in the CBD of Washington, D.C.,
approximately two blocks from the White House.  The largest
tenant, The Nuclear Energy Institute, vacated at its YE 2012 lease
expiration, reducing property occupancy to 73.5%.  Occupancy has
since rebounded to 85% and the borrower completed some significant
renovations.  An additional 16% of the space rolls within the next
year.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A-3, A-4 and A-1A remain Stable due to
increasing credit enhancement and continued paydown.  Rating
Outlooks on class A-M remains Negative as further collateral
underperformance may lead to a downgrade.  Should cash flows
deteriorate further on the performing loans, or if realized losses
exceed current expectations on the specially serviced loans,
downgrades to this class are possible.

Fitch downgrades the following classes and assigns or revises
Recovery Estimates (REs) as indicated:

   -- $196.5 million class A-M to 'BBsf' from 'BBBsf'; Outlook
      Negative;
   -- $152.3 million class A-J to 'Csf' from 'CCsf', RE 0%.

Fitch affirms these classes as indicated:

   -- $986.4 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $93.9 million class A-1A at 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
   -- $36.9 million class B at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class C at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class D at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class E at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class F at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class G at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class H at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class J at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class K at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class L at 'Dsf', RE 0%;
   -- $0 class M at 'Dsf', RE 0%.

Classes A-1, A-2 and A-3 have paid in full.  Fitch does not rate
the class N, O or P certificates.  Fitch previously withdrew the
rating on the interest-only class XW certificates.


BLACK DIAMOND 2014-1: S&P Assigns BB Rating on Class D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its ratings to Black
Diamond CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Black Diamond CLO 2014-1 LLC's $367.60
million fixed- and 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 ratings reflect:

   -- 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 (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 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 0.2381%-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.

RATINGS LIST

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-1                      A (sf)                       24.80
B-2                      A (sf)                       13.00
C                        BBB (sf)                     20.70
D                        BB (sf)                      17.70
Subordinated notes       NR                           44.15

NR--Not rated.


CIFC FUNDING 2006-I: Moody's Affirms Ba1 Rating on B-2L Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on the following
notes issued by CIFC Funding 2006-I, Ltd.:

  $20,000,000 Class B-1L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Upgraded
  to Aa1 (sf); previously on May 2, 2014 Upgraded to Aa3 (sf)

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

  $293,000,000 Class A-1L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020 (current
  outstanding balance of $50,595,616), Affirmed Aaa (sf);
  previously on May 2, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $100,000,000 Class A-1LR Variable Funding Notes Due 2020
  (current outstanding balance of $16,971,295), Affirmed Aaa
  (sf); previously on May 2, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $26,500,000 Class A-2L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on May 2, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

  $30,500,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020, Affirmed
  Aaa (sf); previously on May 2, 2014 Upgraded to Aaa (sf)

  $23,000,000 Class B-2L Floating Rate Notes Due 2020 (current
  outstanding balance of $21,966,922) Affirmed Ba1 (sf),
  previously on May 2, 2014 Upgraded to Ba1 (sf)

CIFC Funding 2006-I, Ltd., issued in August 2006, is a
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a
portfolio of senior secured loans. The transaction's reinvestment
period ended in October 2012.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization (OC) ratios since the last rating action in May
2014. The Class A-1 notes have been paid down by approximately
32.8% or $33 million since the last rating action. Based on the
trustee's September 10, 2014 report, the OC ratios for the Senior
Class A, Class A, Class B-1L and Class B-2L notes are reported at
193.9%, 146.4%, 126.2% and 109.5%, respectively, versus the April
2014 levels of 156.8%, 131.8%, 119.3% and 108.1%, respectively.

Additionally, the deal has benefited from an improvement in the
credit quality of the portfolio since the last rating action.
Based on the trustee's September 10, 2014 report, the weighted
average rating factor (WARF) was reported at 2496 compared to 2633
in April 2014.

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. 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% (2108)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: +1

Class B-2L: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3162)

Class A-1L: 0

Class A-1LR: 0

Class A-2L: 0

Class A-3L: 0

Class B-1L: -2

Class B-2L: -2

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
WARF, 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 $181.9 million, defaulted par of $2.9 million, a
weighted average default probability of 16.94% (implying a WARF of
2635), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 51.63%, a
diversity score of 44 and a weighted average spread of 3.2%.

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


COLUMBUSNOVA 2006-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes From BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D, and E notes from ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2006-I, a
collateralized loan obligation transaction, and removed them from
CreditWatch, where they were placed with positive implications on
Aug. 29, 2014.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on the
class A notes.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Oct. 2012.  Since
then, the class A notes have paid down $159.4 million to reduce
their remaining outstanding balance to less than 46% of the
original balance.

The upgrades and affirmation reflect these paydowns to the class A
notes, which helped create additional support for the subordinate
notes.  The improvements are also evident in the increased senior
and mezzanine overcollateralization ratios.  As of the Oct. 10,
2014, trustee report, the transaction did not hold any defaulted
assets in the 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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2006-I

                                 Cash flow   Cash flow
           Previous              implied     cushion      Final
Class      rating                rating      (i)          rating
A          AAA (sf)              AAA (sf)    29.69%       AAA (sf)
B          AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AAA (sf)    11.66%       AAA (sf)
C          A+ (sf)/Watch Pos     AA+ (sf)    7.63%        AA+ (sf)
D          BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos   A+ (sf)     4.36%        A+ (sf)
E          BB- (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB (sf)    0.62%        BBB (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          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
C          AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)
D          A+ (sf)     A (sf)     A+ (sf)     AA- (sf)   A+ (sf)
E          BBB (sf)    BB+ (sf)   BBB- (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   BBB (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            AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)        A+ (sf)         AA+ (sf)
D            A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)         BBB- (sf)       A+ (sf)
E            BBB (sf)     BBB- (sf)       B+ (sf)         BBB (sf)

RATINGS LIST

ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2006-I

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A       199648AA4    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B       199648AB2    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       199648AC0    AA+ (sf)   A+ (sf)/Watch Pos
D       199648AD8    A+ (sf)    BBB- (sf)/Watch Pos
E       199647AA6    BBB (sf)   BB- (sf)/Watch Pos


COLUMBUSNOVA 2007-I: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes From BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D, and E notes from ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2007-I, a
collateralized loan obligation transaction, and removed them from
CreditWatch, where they were placed with positive implications on
Aug. 29, 2014.  At the same time, S&P affirmed its rating on the
class A-1 notes.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in May 2013, and S&P
raised its ratings on the class A-1, B, and C notes in Jan. 2014.
Since then, the class A-1 notes have paid down an additional
$123.3 million to reduce their remaining outstanding balance to
about 37% of the original balance.

The upgrades and affirmation reflect these paydowns to the class
A-1 notes, which helped create additional support for the
subordinate notes.  The improvements are also evident in the
increased class A/B, C, and D overcollateralization ratios.  As of
the Aug. 8, 2014, trustee report, the transaction did not hold any
defaulted assets in the 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.

CASH FLOW RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2007-I

                                 Cash flow   Cash flow
            Previous             implied     cushion      Final
Class       rating               rating      (i)          rating
A-1         AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    35.57%       AAA (sf)
B           AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    16.60%       AAA (sf)
C           AA- (sf)/Watch Pos   AA+ (sf)    13.35%       AA+ (sf)
D           BBB (sf)/Watch Pos   A+ (sf)     7.09%        A+ (sf)
E           BB (sf)/Watch Pos    BBB+ (sf)   1.01%        BBB (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)
B          AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
C          AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AAA (sf)     AA+ (sf)
D          A+ (sf)     AA (sf)    A+ (sf)    AA (sf)      A+ (sf)
E          BBB+ (sf)   BBB+ (sf)  BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)    BBB (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
Classs       rating       rating        rating          rating
A-1          AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)
B            AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)        AAA (sf)
C            AA+ (sf)     AA+ (sf)      AA (sf)         AA+ (sf)
D            A+ (sf)      A+ (sf)       BBB- (sf)       A+ (sf)
E            BBB+ (sf)    BBB (sf)      B (sf)          BBB (sf)

RATINGS LIST

ColumbusNova CLO Ltd. 2007-I

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A-1     19964LAA5    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
B       19964LAE7    AAA (sf)   AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       19964LAG2    AA+ (sf)   AA- (sf)/Watch Pos
D       19964LAJ6    A+ (sf)    BBB (sf)/Watch Pos
E       19964RAA2    BBB (sf)   BB (sf)/Watch Pos


COMM 2012-CCRE3: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on Cl. G Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed the ratings of 14 classes in
COMM Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2012-CCRE3 as follows:

Cl. A-1, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-2, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-3, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. A-SB, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. B, Affirmed Aa3 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aa3
(sf)

Cl. PEZ, Affirmed A1 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed A1
(sf)

Cl. C, Affirmed A3 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. D, Affirmed Baa1 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Baa1
(sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Baa3 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Baa3
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba2
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed B2 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed B2
(sf)

Cl. X-A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. X-B, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Sep 5, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(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 two IO classes, X-A and X-B, were affirmed
based on the credit performance (or the weighted average rating
factor or WARF) of their referenced classes.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 3.0% of the
current balance compared to 2.8% at last review. Moody's base
expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.9% of the original
pooled balance compared to 2.7% at last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating 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, the same as at last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 17, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 2% to $1.228
billion from $1.251 billion at securitization. The certificates
are collateralized by 50 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 10% of the pool.

There are five loans 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 and there is only one
loan currently in special servicing. Moody's is not anticipating a
loss from this specialy serviced loan.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 100% of the
pool and partial 2014 results for 70% of the pool. Moody's
weighted average conduit LTV is 90% compared to 95% at last
review. Moody's actual and stressed DSCRs are 1.78X and 1.16X,
respectively, compared to 1.71X and 1.09X at 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 15% to the most recently available net
operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a weighted average
capitalization rate of 9.4%. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on
Moody's NCF and a 9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan
balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 27% of the pool. The largest
conduit loan is the 260 and 261 Madison Avenue Loan ($126.0
million -- 10.3% of the pool), which is secured by two Class B+
office towers totaling 923,277 square feet (SF), located in
midtown Manhattan on Madison Avenue between East 36th and East
37th Streets. This loan represents a pari passu interest in a
$231.0 million loan. The loan is interest only for the entire 10-
year term. As of March 2014 the properties had a combined
occupancy of approximately 90% compared to 92% at last review.
Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 98% and 0.97X, respectively,
compared to 97% and 0.98X at last review.

The second largest conduit loan is the Solano Mall Loan ($105.0
million -- 8.6% of the pool), which is secured by a 561,015 SF
(1.1 million SF total) super regional mall located in Fairfield,
California. The loan is interest only for the entire 10-year term.
The mall is anchored by Macy's, Sears, and J.C. Penney, which are
not part of the collateral. The largest tenant in the collateral
is Edwards Cinemas (11% of NRA, lease expiration December 2024)
which serves as a significant draw to the center. Property revenue
from rent and reimbursements declined since last review in concert
with lower occupancy. The property was 94% leased as of June 2014
compared to 98% at last review. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are
81% and 1.23X, respectively, compared to 73% and 1.38X at last
review.

The third largest conduit loan is the Crossgates Mall Loan ($104.6
million -- 8.5% of the pool), which is secured by a 1.3 million SF
(1.7 million SF total) super regional mall located in Albany, New
York. This loan represents a pari passu interest in a $290.6
million loan. The mall is anchored by Macy's, J.C. Penny, Dick's
Sporting Goods, Best Buy and a Regal Crossgates 18 IMEX theater.
The property was 91% leased as of June 2014 compared to 97% at
last review. Revenue achievement increased between December 2012
and December 2013 despite lower occupancy over the same time
period. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 91% and 0.98X,
respectively, compared to 92% and 0.97X at last review.


COMMODORE CDO III: Moody's Ups Ratings on 2 Note Classes to Caa3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on notes issued
by Commodore CDO III, Ltd.:

  $245,000,000 Class A-1A First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2040 (current outstanding balance of
  $33,345,581.87), Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on March 7,
  2013 Affirmed Ca (sf);

  $16,700,000 Class A-1C First Priority Senior Secured Floating
  Rate Notes Due 2040 (current outstanding balance of
  $13,634,377.58), Upgraded to Caa3 (sf); previously on March 7,
  2013 Upgraded to Ca (sf).

Commodore CDO III, Ltd., issued in March 2005, is a collateralized
debt obligation backed primarily by a portfolio of RMBS, CMBS and
SF CDOs originated in 2004 and 2005.

Ratings Rationale

These rating actions are due primarily to the deleveraging of the
senior notes. The Class A-1 notes have paid down by approximately
9.1%, or $4.7 million since October 2013. The paydown of the Class
A-1 notes is partially the result of cash collections from certain
assets treated as defaulted by the trustee in amounts materially
exceeding expectations. These proceeds have been applied to both
principal payments on the Class A-1 notes as well as to interest
payments on the Class A-1, Class A-2 and Class B notes.
Accordingly, Moody's have assumed the deal will continue to
benefit from some recoveries from defaulted securities, some of
which have experienced significant price increases in the last two
years.

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: Primary causes of uncertainty about
assumptions are the extent of any slowdown in growth in the
current macroeconomic environment and in the commercial and
residential real estate property markets. Although the commercial
real estate property markets are gaining momentum, consistent
growth will be unlikely until the volume of transactions
increases, distressed properties are cleared from the pipeline and
job creation rebounds. The residential real estate property market
is subject to uncertainty about housing prices; the pace of
residential mortgage foreclosures, loan modifications and
refinancing; the unemployment rate; and interest rates.

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 limited recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries exceeding Moody's expectation in the
future would positively impact the notes' ratings.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Owing to the deal's low overcollateralization ratio, Moody's did
not use a cash flow model to analyze the default and recovery
properties of the collateral pool. Instead, Moody's analyzed the
transaction by assessing the ratings impact of, and the deal's
sensitivity to, the market value of the assets that are treated as
defaulted by the trustee.

The deal's ratings are not expected to be sensitive to the typical
range of changes (plus or minus two rating notches on Caa-rated
assets) in the rating quality of the collateral that Moody's
tests, and no sensitivity analysis was performed.


DIVERSIFIED ASSET II: Moody's Hikes Rating on $30MM Notes to Caa3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the rating on notes issued
by Diversified Asset Securitization Holdings III, L.P.:

  $30,000,000 Class A-3L Floating Rate Notes Due July 2036
  (current outstanding balance of $14,772,676.28), Upgraded to
  Caa3 (sf); previously on April 8, 2008 Downgraded to Ca (sf).

Diversified Asset Securitization Holdings III, L.P. is a
collateralized debt obligation issuance backed by a portfolio of
primarily Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) and
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS).

Ratings Rationale

The rating action is 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-3L notes
have paid down by approximately 34.5%, or $7.8 million, since
November 2013. Based on Moody's calculation, the par coverage on
Class A-3L has increased to 104%. The paydown of the Class A notes
is partially the result of cash collections from certain assets
treated as defaulted by the trustee in amounts materially
exceeding expectations. Accordingly, Moody's have assumed the deal
will continue to benefit from some recoveries from defaulted
securities, some of which have experienced significant price
increases in the last two years.

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: Primary causes of uncertainty about
assumptions are the extent of any slowdown in growth in the
current macroeconomic environment and in the commercial and
residential real estate property markets. Although the commercial
real estate property markets are gaining momentum, consistent
growth will be unlikely until the volume of transactions
increases, distressed properties are cleared from the pipeline and
job creation rebounds. The residential real estate property market
is subject to uncertainty about housing prices; the pace of
residential mortgage foreclosures, loan modifications and
refinancing; the unemployment rate; and interest rates.

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 limited recoveries, and therefore,
realization of any recoveries exceeding Moody's expectation in the
future would positively impact the notes' ratings.

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Owing to the deal's low overcollateralization ratio, Moody's did
not use a cash flow model to analyze the default and recovery
properties of the collateral pool. Instead, Moody's analyzed the
transaction by assessing the ratings impact of, and the deal's
sensitivity to, the market value of the assets that are treated as
defaulted by the trustee.

The deal's ratings are not expected to be sensitive to the typical
range of changes (plus or minus two rating notches on Caa-rated
assets) in the rating quality of the collateral that Moody's
tests, and no sensitivity analysis was performed.


EXETER AUTOMOBILE 2014-3: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on D Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3's $500
million 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 Oct. 2,
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 48.87%, 40.03%, 32.06%,
      and 26.14% credit support for the class A, B, C, and D
      notes, respectively, based on stressed cash flow scenarios
      (including excess spread), which provide coverage of more
      than 2.55x, 2.10x, 1.60x, and 1.30x our 17.25%-18.25%
      expected cumulative net loss.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments that S&P believes
      will be made to the preliminary rated notes by the assumed
      legal final maturity dates under stressed cash flow modeling
      scenarios that S&P believes is appropriate for the assigned
      preliminary ratings.

   -- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, its ratings on the class A,
      B, and C notes will remain within one rating category of its
      preliminary 'AA (sf)', 'A (sf)', and 'BBB (sf)' ratings,
      respectively, during the first year; and that S&P's ratings
      on the class D notes will remain within two rating
      categories of its preliminary 'BB (sf)' rating during the
      first year.  These potential rating movements are consistent
      with S&P's credit stability criteria, which outline the
      outer bound of credit deterioration as a one-category
      downgrade within the first year for 'AA' rated securities
      and a two-category downgrade within the first year for 'A'
      through 'BB' rated securities under the moderate stress
      conditions.

   -- The collateral characteristics of the subprime automobile
      loans securitized in this transaction.

   -- The transaction's payment, credit enhancement, and legal
      structures.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2014-3

Class     Rating      Type             Interest          Amount
                                       rate(i)      (mil. $)(i)
A         AA (sf)     Senior           Fixed             319.01
B         A (sf)      Subordinate      Fixed              76.82
C         BBB (sf)    Subordinate      Fixed              61.20
D         BB (sf)     Subordinate      Fixed              42.97

(i) The interest rates and actual sizes of these tranches will be
     determined on the pricing date.


FLAGSHIP CREDIT 2014-2: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB- Rating on E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to Flagship Credit Auto Trust 2014-2's $329.98 million
auto receivables-backed notes series 2014-2.

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

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 2,
2014.  Subsequent information may result in the assignment of
final ratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect:

   -- The availability of approximately 39.47%, 31.24%, 24.26%,
      20.84% and 19.07%  credit support (including excess spread)
      for the class A, B, C, D, and E notes respectively, based on
      stressed cash flow scenarios.  These credit support levels
      provide coverage of approximately 3.00x, 2.30x, 1.75x,
      1.50x, and 1.35x S&P's 12.50%-13.00% expected cumulative net
      loss range for the class A, B, C, D and E notes,
      respectively.

   -- The timely interest and principal payments made under
      stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that are appropriate
      to the assigned preliminary ratings.

   -- The expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress
      scenario, all else being equal, S&P's ratings on the class A
      notes would remain within one rating category of S&P's
      preliminary 'AA (sf)' ratings within the first year and
      S&P's ratings on the class B, C, D, and E notes would remain
      within two rating categories of our preliminary 'A (sf)',
      'BBB (sf)', 'BB (sf)', and 'BB- (sf)' ratings, respectively
      within the first year.  This is within the one category
      rating tolerance for our 'AA', and two-category rating
      tolerance for S&P's 'A', 'BBB', and 'BB', rated securities,
      as outlined in S&P's credit stability criteria.

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

   -- The characteristics of the collateral pool being
      securitized.

   -- The transaction's payment and legal structures.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

Flagship Credit Auto Trust 2014-2

Class     Rating     Type          Interest           Amount
                                   rate(i)       (mil. $)(i)
A         AA (sf)    Senior        Fixed              242.04
B         A (sf)     Subordinate   Fixed               38.53
C         BBB (sf)   Subordinate   Fixed               31.83
D         BB (sf)    Subordinate   Fixed               12.56
E         BB- (sf)   Subordinate   Fixed                5.02

(i) The actual coupons of these tranches will be determined on
     the pricing date.


FRASER SULLIVAN II: S&P Raises Rating on Class E Notes to 'B+'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B, C, D and E notes from Fraser Sullivan CLO II Ltd., a cash flow
collateralized loan obligation (CLO) transaction managed by 3i
Debt Management U.S. LLC, and removed them from CreditWatch where
S&P placed them with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  S&P
also affirmed its ratings on the class A-1A, A-1B, and A-2 notes.

S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-1A, A-1B, and
A-2 notes and raised its ratings on the class B, C, D and E notes
to reflect increased credit support available to these notes.

Since S&P's Nov. 2013 rating actions, the class A-1 notes have
paid down by $113 million to 14% of their initial issuance
amounts.  The class A/B overcollateralization (O/C) ratio
increased to 165% as of the Sept. 2014 trustee report from 144% as
of the Oct. 2013 trustee report, which S&P referenced for its
Nov. 2013 rating actions.  The balance of 'CCC' rated collateral
has also decreased since that time.

Although the class E notes now pass S&P's cash flow stresses at a
higher rating category, it raised its rating to 'B+ (sf)' because
it is constrained by the top obligor test due to the larger
exposures within the portfolio.

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 II Ltd.

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow    Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion (i)  rating
A-1A   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    19.58%       AAA (sf)
A-1B   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    19.58%       AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    19.58%       AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    19.58%       AAA (sf)
C      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)    14.85%       AA+ (sf)
D      BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)   6.93%        BBB+ (sf)
E      B (sf)/Watch Pos     BB (sf)     0.74%        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   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)   AA (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      AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)   AA+ (sf)    AAA (sf)    AA+ (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)  BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)
E      BB (sf)    B+ (sf)    BB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)    B+ (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

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

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Fraser Sullivan CLO II Ltd.

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Fraser Sullivan CLO II Ltd.

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


GMAC COMMERCIAL 2002-C2: Moody's Affirms C Rating on Cl. O Certs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings of three
classes and downgraded the rating of one class in GMAC Commercial
Mortgage Securities, Inc. Series 2002-C2 Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates as follows:

  Cl. M, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Upgraded to
  Aaa (sf)

  Cl. N, Downgraded to Ba1 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014
  Upgraded to Baa1 (sf)

  Cl. O, Affirmed C (sf); previously on May 1, 2014 Affirmed
  C(sf)

  Cl. X-1, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on May 1, 2014
  Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating on Class M was 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 rating on Class O was affirmed because the ratings are
consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

The rating on Class N was downgraded due primarily to interest
shortfalls affecting the class, plus the ongoing risk of future
interest shortfalls which may impact the class.

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 6.3% of the
current balance compared to 10.4% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 2.1% of the
original pooled balance compared to 2.1% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

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

Description of Models Used

Moody's uses a variation of Herf to measure the diversity of loan
sizes, where a higher number represents greater diversity. Loan
concentration has an important bearing on potential rating
volatility, including the risk of multiple notch downgrades under
adverse circumstances. The credit neutral Herf score is 40. The
pool has a Herf of 3, unchanged from Moody's last review.

Because of the low Herf in the transaction, Moody's used the
excel-based Large Loan Model v 8.7 in formulating a rating
recommendation. The large loan model derives credit enhancement
levels based on an aggregation of adjusted loan-level proceeds
derived from Moody's loan-level LTV ratios. Major adjustments to
determining proceeds include leverage, loan structure, property
type and sponsorship. Moody's also further adjusts these
aggregated proceeds for any pooling benefits associated with loan
level diversity and other concentrations and correlations.

Deal Performance

As of the September 15, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 98% to $14 million
from $738 million at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by three mortgage loans ranging in size from 15% to
46% of the pool. The pool contains no loans with investment-grade
structured credit assessments and no defeased loans.

One loan, constituting 39% of the pool, is on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Twelve loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing to
an aggregate realized loss of $14 million (for an average loss
severity of 29%). One loan, constituting 15% of the pool, is
currently in special servicing. The specially serviced loan is the
Parkway Center North Loan ($2 million -- 15% of the pool), which
is secured by a 20,000 square foot suburban office property in
Highlands Ranch, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. The loan
transferred to special servicing in November 2011 for imminent
maturity default and became REO in March 2013. The largest tenant,
NRT Colorado, occupies 24% of the property's net rentable area
(NRA) under a lease originally set to expire in January 2015. The
tenant recently extended its lease through January 2020. Moody's
analysis incorporates an elevated loss for this loan.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results and partial year
2014 operating results for 100% of the pool.

The pool contains two performing loans. The largest loan is the
Landsdowne Centre Loan ($6 million -- 46% of the pool), which is
secured by an 87,000 square foot retail center in Alexandria,
Virginia. The property was 93% leased as of September 2014. The
largest tenant, occupying 15,000 square feet (17% of the property
NRA), is the Fairfax County Library, followed by drugstore chain
CVS (12% NRA). The lead tenants' leases expire in June 2020 and
October 2019, respectively. The loan is fully amortizing and
matures in June 2022. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 37% and
3.18X, respectively, compared to 39% and 2.96X at prior review.

The second largest loan is the 20 Horseneck Lane Loan ($5 million
-- 39% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 45,000 square foot
office property in Greenwich, Connecticut. The property is 100%
leased to MMC Capital through October 31, 2014. The space is
subleased to Stone Point Capital, which acquired MMC Capital in
2005. The loan is on the watchlist due to the nearterm lease
expiration of the sole tnant. Moody's expects a full payoff of
this loan before or near the loan maturity date of November 1,
2014. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 32% and 3.34X,
respectively, compared to 33% and 3.29X at the last review.


I-PREFERRED SECURITIES IV: S&P Raises Cl. C Notes' Rating to B-
---------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-2, A-3, B-M-1, B-M-2, C, and D notes from I-Preferred Term
Securities IV Ltd., a collateralized debt obligation transaction
backed by trust-preferred securities (TruPs) issued mainly by
insurance companies, and removed the ratings on the class A-2, A-
3, B-M-1, and B-M-2 notes from CreditWatch, where S&P had placed
them with positive implications on July 2, 2014.

The upgrades reflect paydowns to the class A-1, A-2, and A-3 notes
and the improved credit support available to the notes since S&P
raised its ratings on the class A-1, A-2, A-3, B-M-1, and B-M-2
notes in July 2012.  Since that time, the transaction has paid
down the class A-1 notes in full.  Additionally the class A-2 and
A-3 notes have been paid down, pro-rata, by approximately $7.7
million, leaving them at 84.79% of their original balances.  The
paydowns came from principal proceeds as well as interest proceeds
captured at the bottom ofthe transaction's waterfall.

The upgrades also reflect the improved overcollateralization (O/C)
available to the notes, mainly due to the aforementioned paydowns,
since our July 2012 rating actions.  The trustee reported the
following increased O/C ratios in the Sept. 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 366.09%, up from 165.09% in the
      March 2012 monthly report, which we used for our July 2012
      rating actions;

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 128.13%, up from 105.87% in March
      2012; and

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 116.38%, up from 100.28% in March
      2012.

The upgrades further reflect a decline in the amount of
nonperforming assets since the July 17, 2012, action.  According
the to the Sept. 2014 trustee report, there were no defaulted or
deferring securities in the collateral pool.  This is down from
the $36.0 million cited in the March 2012 report.

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
further rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LIST

I-Preferred Term Securities IV Ltd.

                     Rating     Rating
Class   Identifier   To         From
A-2     44984RAB4    AA (sf)    A (sf)/Watch Pos
A-3     44984RAC2    AA (sf)    A (sf)/Watch Pos
B-M-1   44984RAE8    BB- (sf)   CCC (sf)/Watch Pos
B-M-2   44984RAF5    BB- (sf)   CCC (sf)/Watch Pos
C       44984RAH1    B- (sf)    CCC- (sf)
D       44984RAJ7    CCC (sf)   CCC- (sf)


INCAPS FUNDING I: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Note Classes to 'BB-'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B-1, B-2, and C notes from InCaps Funding I Ltd., a collateralized
debt obligation transaction backed by trust-preferred securities
(TruPs) issued by insurance companies, and removed the ratings on
the class B-1 and B-2 notes from CreditWatch, where S&P placed
them with positive implications on July 2, 2014.

The upgrades reflect paydowns to the class A and B notes and the
improved credit support available to the notes since S&P raised
its ratings on the class A, B-1, and B-2 notes in June 2012.
Since then, the transaction has paid down the class A notes in
full and the class B-1 and B-2 notes, pro rata, by a total of
approximately $38.32 million.  This has left the class B-1 and B-2
notes at 69.22% of their original balances.

The upgrades also reflect the improved overcollateralization (O/C)
available to the notes, mainly due to the aforementioned paydowns,
since S&P's June 2012 rating actions.  The class B O/C ratio was
135.05% according to the Aug. 2014 report, up from the 111.84% in
the March 2012 report, which S&P used for its June 2012 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 rating
further rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LIST

InCapS Funding I Ltd.

                     Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
B-1     453247AC2    BB- (sf)    CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-2     453247AD0    BB- (sf)    CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos
C       453247AE8    CCC+ (sf)   CCC- (sf)


INCAPS FUNDING II: S&P Raises Rating on Class C Notes to CCC+
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the A-2,
B-1, B-2, and C notes from InCapS Funding II Ltd., a
collateralized debt obligation transaction backed by trust-
preferred securities (TruPs) issued by insurance companies, and
removed the rating on the class A-2 notes from CreditWatch, where
S&P placed it with positive implications on July 2, 2014.

The upgrades reflect paydowns to the class A-1 and A-2 notes and
the improved credit support available to the notes since S&P
raised its ratings on the class A-1 and A-2 notes in June 2012.
Since that time, the transaction has paid the class A-1 notes in
full.  Additionally, the class A-2 notes have been paid down by
approximately $1.93 million, leaving them at 96.18% of their
original balance.  The class C notes have also benefitted from
paydowns from excess interest proceeds, due to a turbo mechanism
at the bottom of the transaction's waterfall.

The upgrades also reflect the improved overcollateralization (O/C)
available to the notes, mainly due to the aforementioned paydowns,
since our June 2012 rating actions.  The trustee reported the
following increased O/C ratios in the July 2014 report:

   -- The class A O/C ratio was 357.06%, up from the 225.88% in
      the April 2012 report, which S&P used for its June 2012
      rating actions.

   -- The class B O/C ratio was 121.41%, up from 115.73% in April
      2012.

   -- The class C O/C ratio was 109.11%, up from 106.83% in April
      2012.

The upgrades further reflect a decline in the amount of
nonperforming assets since the last rating action.  According to
the July 2014 trustee report, there were $21.0 million in
defaulted and deferring securities, down from the $33.0 million
cited in the April 2012 report.

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
further rating actions as it deems necessary.

RATINGS LIST

InCapS Funding II Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-2     45325VAB0    BBB+ (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
B-1     45325VAC8    B- (sf)     CCC- (sf)
B-2     45325VAD6    B- (sf)     CCC- (sf)
C       45325VAE4    CCC+ (sf)   CCC- (sf)


INWOOD PARK: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class E Notes
-----------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on three
classes of notes from Inwood Park CDO Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction, and removed them from CreditWatch,
where S&P placed them with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.
At the same time, S&P affirmed its ratings on the class A-1A.
A-1B, A-2, and E notes from the same transaction.

This transaction has a pro rata sequential pay feature in which
two classes receive payments pro rata, but within the two notes,
subclasses receive payments sequentially.  As a result, some
classes can be paid down in full before the other classes and can
therefore support higher ratings.  In this transaction, the class
A-1A and A-1B notes receive payments pro rata with the class A-2
notes.  The class A-1A and A-1B notes are paid sequentially.  As a
result, the class A-1A notes could be paid in full before the
class A-1B and A-2 notes.

The transaction's reinvestment period ended in Jan. 2013, and it
is currently in its amortization period.  The upgrades reflect
paydowns of $100.84 million and $25.32 million to the class A-1A
and A-2 notes, respectively, which are now at 32.92% and 46.34% of
their original class balances.  These paydowns led to increased
overcollateralization (O/C) ratios for each outstanding class.

The affirmations reflect the sufficient credit support available
to the notes at 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 rating
actions as it deems necessary.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS COMPARISON

Inwood Park CDO Ltd.

                            Cash flow
             Previous       implied     Cash flow    Final
Class    rating             rating      cushion(i)   rating
A-1A   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)        31.95%   AAA (sf)
A-1B   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)        25.30%   AAA (sf)
A-2    AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)        25.30%   AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)         7.64%   AAA (sf)
C      A+ (sf)/Watch Pos    AA+ (sf)         2.40%   AA+ (sf)
D      BBB (sf)/Watch Pos   BBB+ (sf)        5.15%   BBB+ (sf)
E      BB (sf)              BB (sf)          0.81%   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.

                        Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                Nov. 2013            Sept. 2014
A-1A                    287.01                186.16
A-1B                    141.38                141.38
A-2                     107.57                 82.25
B                        90.63                 90.63
C                        68.75                 68.75
D                        50.00                 50.00
E                        50.00                 50.00

Coverage tests (%)
A/B O/C                 135.28                143.50
C O/C                   121.91                126.16
D O/C                   113.73                115.98
E O/C                   106.58                107.31
WAS (%)                   3.40                  3.05

O/C--Overcollateralization.
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
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-2    AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
B      AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)    AAA (sf)
C      AA+ (sf)   AA (sf)    AA (sf)     AA+ (sf)    AA+ (sf)
D      BBB+ (sf)  BBB (sf)   BBB+ (sf)   A- (sf)     BBB+ (sf)
E      BB (sf)    B+ (sf)    BB- (sf)    BB+ (sf)    BB (sf)

DEFAULT BIASING SENSITIVITY

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

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

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

Inwood Park CDO Ltd.

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Inwood Park CDO Ltd.

                             Rating
Class               To                From
A-1A                AAA (sf)          AAA (sf)
A-1B                AAA (sf)          AAA (sf)
A-2                 AAA (sf)          AAA (sf)
E                   BB (sf)           BB (sf)


JASPER CLO: Moody's Affirms B2 Rating on 2 Note Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Jasper CLO, Ltd.:

$35,000,000 Class C Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
Interest Extendable Notes Due 2017, Upgraded to A2 (sf);
previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed Baa1 (sf)

$5,000,000 Class 2 Extendable Composite Securities Due 2017
(current rated balance of $2,845,854.14), Upgraded to Aa2 (sf);
previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed A1 (sf)

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

$521,500,000 Class A Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable
Notes Due 2017 (current outstanding balance of $86,245,821.48),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014 Affirmed Aaa (sf)

$35,000,000 Class B Floating Rate Senior Secured Extendable Notes
Due 2017, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on May 13, 2014 Upgraded
to Aaa (sf)

$33,500,000 Class D-1 Floating Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
Interest Extendable Notes Due 2017 (current outstanding balance of
$17,984,317.58), Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on May 13, 2014
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

$5,000,000 Class D-2 Fixed Rate Senior Secured Deferrable
Interest Extendable Notes Due 2017 (current outstanding balance of
$2,673,147.04), Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on May 13, 2014
Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Jasper CLO, Ltd., issued in June 2005, is a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of senior secured
loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in November
2012.

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of the
senior notes and an increase in the transaction's over-
collateralization ratios since May 2014. The Class A notes have
been paid down by approximately 29% or $35.1 million. Based on the
trustee's August 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, and Class D notes are reported
at 159.19%, 123.53%, and 109.11%, respectively, versus May 2014
levels of 144.79%, 118.31%, and 106.79%, respectively.

The portfolio includes a number of investments in securities that
mature after the notes do. Based on the trustee's August 2014
report, securities that mature after the notes do currently make
up approximately 14.25% of the portfolio or $33.7 million. These
investments could expose the notes to market risk in the event of
liquidation when the notes mature.

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

7) Exposure to credit estimates: The deal contains a 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. Moody's also assessed the collateral pool's
concentration risk in obligors with credit estimates that
constitute more than 3% of the collateral pool.

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% (2298)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: +2

Class D-1: +1

Class D-2: +2

Class 2 Composite Securities: +2

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3446)

Class A: 0

Class B: 0

Class C: -1

Class D-1: 0

Class D-2: 0

Class 2 Composite Securities: -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 $185.6 million, defaulted
par of $50.9 million, a weighted average default probability of
14.09% (implying a WARF of 2872), a weighted average recovery rate
upon default of 49.32%, a diversity score of 19 and a weighted
average spread of 3.22%.

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 3.70% of the collateral
pool. Additionally, for each credit estimates whose related
exposure constitutes more than 3% of the collateral pool, Moody's
applied a two-notch equivalent assumed downgrade to approximately
3.66% of the pool.


JMP CLO III: Moody's Assigns Ba3 Rating on $18.3MM Class E Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned ratings to five classes of
notes issued by JMP Credit Advisors CLO III Ltd. (the "Issuer" or
"JMP CLO III").

Moody's rating action is as follows:

$228,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2025
(the "Class A Notes"), Assigned Aaa (sf)

$41,700,000 Class B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due 2025
(the "Class B Notes"), Assigned Aa2 (sf)

$22,500,000 Class C Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2025 (the "Class C Notes"), Assigned A2 (sf)

$21,600,000 Class D Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2025 (the "Class D Notes"), Assigned Baa3 (sf)

$18,300,000 Class E Mezzanine Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2025 (the "Class E Notes"), Assigned Ba3 (sf)

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

Ratings Rationale

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

JMP CLO III is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes will be
collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien senior
secured corporate loans. At least 90% of the portfolio must
consist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up
to 10% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans and
senior unsecured loans. The Issuer's documents require the
portfolio to be at least 66% ramped as of the closing date.

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

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

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

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

Par amount: $360,000,000

Diversity Score: 70

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2906

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.05%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

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

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

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

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

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

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 15% (from 2906 to 3342)

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: 0

Class B Notes: -1

Class C Notes: -2

Class D Notes: -1

Class E Notes: 0

Percentage Change in WARF -- increase of 30% (from 2906 to 3778)]

Rating Impact in Rating Notches

Class A Notes: -1

Class B Notes: -2

Class C Notes: -3

Class D Notes: -2

Class E 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.


JPMBB 2014-C23: Moody's Assigns B1 Rating on Class UH5 Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has assigned final ratings to 12 classes
of CMBS securities, issued by JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust 2014-C23, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates.

Cl. A-1, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-2, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-3, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-5, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-SB, Definitive Rating Assigned Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-S*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. B*, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa3 (sf)

Cl. C*, Definitive Rating Assigned A3 (sf)

Cl. EC*, Definitive Rating Assigned A1 (sf)

Cl. X-A**, Definitive Rating Assigned Aa1 (sf)

Cl. UH5***, Definitive Rating Assigned B1 (sf)

  * Reflects Exchangeable Class
** Reflects Interest-Only Class
*** Reflects Loan Specific Class (U-Haul Portfolio 5)

Ratings Rationale

The Certificates are collateralized by 65 fixed-rate loans secured
by 101 properties. The ratings are based on the collateral and the
structure of the transaction.

Moody's CMBS ratings methodology combines both commercial real
estate and structured finance analysis. Based on commercial real
estate analysis, Moody's determines the credit quality of each
mortgage loan and calculates an expected loss on a loan specific
basis. Under structured finance, the credit enhancement for each
certificate typically depends on the expected frequency, severity,
and timing of future losses. Moody's also considers a range of
qualitative issues as well as the transaction's structural and
legal aspects.

The credit risk of loans is determined primarily by two factors:
(1) Moody's assessment of the probability of default, which is
largely driven by each loan's DSCR, and (2) Moody's assessment of
the severity of loss upon a default, which is largely driven by
each loan's LTV ratio.

The Moody's Actual DSCR of 1.55x is higher than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 1.31X. The Moody's Stressed
DSCR of 0.92 is in-line the 2007 conduit/fusion transaction
average of 0.92X.

Moody's Trust LTV ratio of 113.5% is higher than the 2007
conduit/fusion transaction average of 110.6%.

Moody's also considers both loan level diversity and property
level diversity when selecting a ratings approach.

With respect to loan level diversity, the pool's loan level
(includes cross collateralized and cross defaulted loans)
Herfindahl Index is 27. The transaction's loan level diversity is
in-line with the Herfindahl scores found in most multi-borrower
transactions issued since 2009. With respect to property level
diversity, the pool's property level Herfindahl Index is 29. The
transaction's property diversity profile is in-line with the
indices calculated in most multi-borrower transactions issued
since 2009.

Moody's also grades properties on a scale of 1 to 5 (best to
worst) and considers those grades when assessing the likelihood of
debt payment. The factors considered include property age, quality
of construction, location, market, and tenancy. The pool's
weighted average property quality grade is 2.26, which is in-line
with the indices calculated in most multi-borrower transactions
since 2009.

This deal is structured with super-senior Aaa classes having 30%
credit enhancement. Although the additional enhancement offered to
the senior most certificate holders provides additional protection
against pool loss, the super-senior structure is credit negative
for the carved out Class A-S certificate which immediately
supports the super-senior classes. If the support certificate were
to take a loss, the loss would have the potential to be quite
large on a percentage basis relative to Moody's idealized Aaa (sf)
loss target. Thin tranches need more subordination to reduce the
probability of default in recognition that their loss-given
default is higher.

Given the composition of the subject pool, Moody's is unable to
assign a Aaa (sf) rating for a support certificate having a credit
enhancement of 23.625% and 6.375% certificate thickness (30.000%
detachment). Although the severity profile (reflected by the
certificate's thickness) is better than Moody's idealized target
for structured ratings, the default profile (reflected by the
stated credit enhancement) is commensurate with a Aa1 (sf) rating.
The profile of each loss component in tandem is not strong enough
to uplift Class A-S to a Aaa (sf) grade.

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

Moody's analysis employs the excel-based CMBS Conduit Model v2.64
which derives credit enhancement levels based on an aggregation of
adjusted loan level proceeds derived from Moody's loan level DSCR
and LTV ratios. Major adjustments to determining proceeds include
loan structure, property type, sponsorship and diversity. Moody's
analysis also uses the CMBS IO calculator version 1.1 which
references the following inputs to calculate the proposed IO
rating based on the published methodology: original and current
bond ratings and credit estimates; original and current bond
balances grossed up for losses for all bonds the IO(s)
reference(s) within the transaction; and IO type corresponding to
an IO type as defined in the published methodology.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: If Moody's value of the
collateral used in determining the initial rating were decreased
by 5%, 15%, and 23%, the model-indicated rating for the currently
rated Aaa (sf) Super Senior class would be Aaa, Aa1, and Aa2,
respectively; for the Aa1 (sf) rated class A-S would be Aa2, Aa3,
and A2, respectively. Parameter Sensitivities are not intended to
measure how the rating of the security might migrate over time;
rather they are designed to provide a quantitative calculation of
how the initial rating might change if key input parameters used
in the initial rating process differed. The analysis assumes that
the deal has not aged. Parameter Sensitivities only reflect the
ratings impact of each scenario from a quantitative/model-
indicated standpoint. Qualitative factors are also taken into
consideration in the ratings process, so the actual ratings that
would be assigned in each case could vary from the information
presented in the Parameter Sensitivity analysis.

These ratings: (a) are based solely on information in the public
domain and/or information communicated to Moody's by the issuer at
the date it was prepared and such information has not been
independently verified by Moody's; (b) must be construed solely as
a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact or an offer,
invitation, inducement or recommendation to purchase, sell or hold
any securities or otherwise act in relation to the issuer or any
other entity or in connection with any other matter. Moody's does
not guarantee or make any representation or warranty as to the
correctness of any information, rating or communication relating
to the issuer. Moody's shall not be liable in contract, tort,
statutory duty or otherwise to the issuer or any other third party
for any loss, injury or cost caused to the issuer or any other
third party, in whole or in part, including by any negligence (but
excluding fraud, dishonesty and/or willful misconduct or any other
type of liability that by law cannot be excluded) on the part of,
or any contingency beyond the control of Moody's, or any of its
employees or agents, including any losses arising from or in
connection with the procurement, compilation, analysis,
interpretation, communication, dissemination, or delivery of any
information or rating relating to the issuer.

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

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


JPMBB 2014-C24: Fitch to Rate 2 Certificate Classes 'Bsf'
---------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has issued a presale report on J.P. Morgan Chase
Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust's JPMBB 2014-C24 commercial
mortgage pass-through certificates.

Fitch expects to rate the transaction and assign Rating Outlooks
as follows:

-- $35,864,000 class A-1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $184,014,000 class A-2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $41,040,000 class A-3 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $190,000,000 class A-4A1 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $75,000,000c class A-4A2 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $297,354,000 class A-5 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $66,649,000 class A-SB 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,279,000b class A-S 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $966,200,000a class X-A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $76,278,000b class B 'AA-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $47,675,000b class C 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $200,232,000b class EC 'A-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $81,046,000c class D 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $204,999,000a class X-B 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $25,426,000c class E 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- $25,426,000ac class X-C 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable.
-- $14,303,000c class F 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.
-- $14,303,000ac class X-D 'Bsf'; 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.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by the
issuer as of Sept. 30, 2014. Fitch does not expect to rate the
$60,387,147 class NR, or the $60,387,147 interest only class X-E.
Fitch does not expect to rate the $5,000,000 class ESK, which will
only receive distributions from, and will only incur losses with
respect to, the non-pooled component of the Embassy Suites
Kennesaw mortgage loan.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 54 loans secured by 64 commercial
properties having an aggregate principal balance of approximately
$1.27 billion as of the cutoff date. The loans were contributed to
the trust by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association; Barclays
Bank PLC; KeyBank, National Association; RAIT Funding, LLC; Column
Financial, Inc.; General Electric Capital Corporation.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 75.6% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis on 85.7%, and asset summary reviews
on 85.7% of the pool.

The transaction has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) of 1.13x, a Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) of 107.1%,
and a Fitch debt yield of 8.7%. Fitch's aggregate net cash flow
represents a variance of 8.9% to issuer cash flows.

Key Rating Drivers

Higher Leverage than Recent Transactions: The pool's Fitch DSCR
and LTV are 1.13x and 107.1%, 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.

High Quality Collateral: Fitch assigned a property quality grade
of 'A' or 'A-' to 15.6% of the pool, with an additional 23.8% of
the pool assigned a property quality grade of 'B+'. Additionally,
the pool has a large concentration of very well-located assets,
including 26.9% of the pool located in New York City.

Highly Concentrated Pool: The top 10 loans comprise 59.8% of the
pool, with 80.6% of the pool contained in the top 20 loans. This
pool is one of the most highly concentrated of recent conduit
transactions.

Rating Sensitivities

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 9.59% below
the most recent NOI (for properties that 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-C24 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
'Asf' 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.


JP MORGAN 2014-PHH: S&P Assigns Prelim. BB Rating on Class E Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services assigned its preliminary
ratings to J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust
2014-PHH's $260 million commercial mortgage pass-through
certificates series 2014-PHH.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgaged-backed
securities transaction backed by one floating-rate mortgage loan
totaling $260.0 million, secured by a first-lien mortgage on the
borrower's fee interest in the 1,642-guestroom Palmer House Hilton
hotel in Chicago and by a first-lien mortgage encumbering all of
the operating lessee's rights in the property.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Oct. 1,
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 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.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS ASSIGNED

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

Class       Rating         Amount ($)
A           AAA (sf)       94,300,000
X-CP        A- (sf)    157,300,000(i)
X-EXT       A- (sf)    157,300,000(i)
B           AA- (sf)       36,100,000
C           A- (sf)        26,900,000
D           BBB- (sf)      34,700,000
E           BB (sf)        29,400,000
F           B+ (sf)        38,600,000

(i) The notional amount of the class X-CP and X-EXT certificates
     will be reduced by the aggregate amount of principal
     distributions and realized losses allocated to the class A,
     class B, and class C certificates.


MERRILL LYNCH 2005-LC1: Moody's Affirms C Rating on 3 Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of three
classes and affirmed 13 classes in Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust,
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-LC1 as
follows:

Cl. A-1A, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. A-4FC, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed
Aaa (sf)

Cl. AM, Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

Cl. AJ, Affirmed Aa2 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed Aa2
(sf)

Cl. B, Upgraded to A1 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed A3
(sf)

Cl. C, Upgraded to A2 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed
Baa1 (sf)

Cl. D, Upgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed
Baa3 (sf)

Cl. E, Affirmed Ba1 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed Ba1
(sf)

Cl. F, Affirmed B1 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed B1
(sf)

Cl. G, Affirmed Caa1 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa1 (sf)

Cl. H, Affirmed Caa3 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Cl. J, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. K, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Downgraded to C
(sf)

Cl. L, Affirmed C (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed C (sf)

Cl. X, Affirmed Ba3 (sf); previously on Oct 31, 2013 Affirmed Ba3
(sf)

Ratings Rationale

The ratings on P&I classes B, C and D were upgraded based
primarily due to an increase in credit support from future loan
paydowns and amortization and anticipated additional increased
credit support from loans approaching maturity that are well
positioned to refinance.

The ratings on P&I classes A-1A through AJ and classes E and F
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 P&I classes G through L were affirmed because
the ratings are consistent with Moody's expected loss.

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

Moody's rating action reflects a base expected loss of 4.2% of the
current balance compared to 4.9% at Moody's last review. Moody's
base expected loss plus realized losses is now 5.1% of the
original pooled balance compared to 5.6% at the last review.

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

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

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

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

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating 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 29 compared to 31 at Moody's last review.

Deal Performance

As of the September 12, 2014 distribution date, the transaction's
aggregate certificate balance has decreased by 34% to $1.02
billion from $1.55 billion at securitization. The certificates are
collateralized by 115 mortgage loans ranging in size from less
than 1% to 11% of the pool, with the top ten loans (excluding
defeasance) constituting 37% of the pool. The pool contains no
loans with investment-grade structured credit assessments.
Seventeen loans, constituting 14% of the pool, have defeased and
are secured by US government securities.

Twenty-two loans, constituting 15% of the pool, are on the master
servicer's watchlist. The watchlist includes loans that meet
certain portfolio review guidelines established as part of the CRE
Finance Council (CREFC) monthly reporting package. As part of
Moody's ongoing monitoring of a transaction, the agency reviews
the watchlist to assess which loans have material issues that
could affect performance.

Fourteen loans have been liquidated from the pool, contributing to
an aggregate realized bond loss of $37 million (for an average
loss severity of 62%). Eight loans, constituting 6% of the pool,
are currently in special servicing. The largest specially serviced
loan is the Two Edgewater Drive Loan ($15 million -- 1% of the
pool), which is secured by a 98,000 square foot suburban office
property in Norwood, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. The
property is currently REO, and was transferred to special
servicing due to concerns that the single tenant, Siemens, would
vacate at its formerly scheduled lease expiration on January 31,
2015. Siemens has recently signed a lease renewal at the property.

The remaining seven specially serviced loans are secured by a mix
of property types. Moody's estimates an aggregate $18 million loss
for the specially serviced loans (32% expected loss on average).

Moody's has assumed a high default probability for six poorly
performing loans, constituting 3% of the pool, and has estimated
an aggregate loss of $4 million (a 15% expected loss based on a
50% probability default) from these troubled loans.

Moody's received full year 2013 operating results for 99% of the
pool, and partial year 2014 operating results for 21% of the pool.
Moody's weighted average conduit LTV is 94%, compared to 96% 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 11.1% to the most recently
available net operating income (NOI). Moody's value reflects a
weighted average capitalization rate of 9.1%.

Moody's actual and stressed conduit DSCRs are 1.34X and 1.11X,
respectively, compared to 1.34X and 1.09X at the last review.
Moody's actual DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and the loan's actual
debt service. Moody's stressed DSCR is based on Moody's NCF and a
9.25% stress rate the agency applied to the loan balance.

The top three conduit loans represent 20% of the pool balance. The
largest loan is the former Colonial Mall Bel Air Loan ($112
million -- 11% of the pool), which is secured by a 1 million
square foot, dominant, indoor, regional mall in Mobile, Alabama.
The mall's anchors include Sears, Dillard's, JC Penney, and Belk.
As of March 2014, inline space was 91% leased compared to 89% in
June 2013. Rouse Properties, Inc. acquired the mall as part of a
loan assumption in May 2014. The former sponsor was a joint
venture with Colonial Properties Trust. The retail center is now
known as Bel Air Mall. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 108% and
0.90X, respectively, compared to 105% and 0.93X at prior review.

The second largest loan is the CNL-Cirrus MOB Portfolio ($55
million -- 5% of the pool). The loan is secured by a portfolio of
seven medical office properties and one surgical center in Dallas,
Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 75% of the loan collateral is
secured by Class A properties constructed since 2001. Portfolio
performance has improved slightly in recent years. As of December
2012, portfolio occupancy was 86%. The loan benefits from
amortization. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 114% and 0.94X,
respectively, compared to 119% and 0.90X at the last review.

The third largest loan is the former Colonial Mall Greenville Loan
($41 million -- 4% of the pool). The loan is secured by a Class B
regional mall in Greenville, North Carolina, now known simply as
Greenville Mall. The mall anchors are Belk, Belk Ladies and JC
Penney. Belk Ladies recently renewed its lease until 2020. The
other anchor lease expirations occur in 2019. Inline occupancy at
the property was 84% in June 2014 compared to 82% one year
earlier. The loan was assumed by Rouse Properties in July 2013.
The property was formerly co-sponsored by Colonial Properties
Trust. Moody's LTV and stressed DSCR are 127% and, 0.79X,
respectively, compared to 122% and 0.82X at the last review.


MORGAN STANLEY 2013-C12: Fitch Affirms 'B-sf' Rating on G Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has affirmed 14 classes of Morgan Stanley Bank of
America Merrill Lynch Trust (MSBAM) commercial mortgage pass-
through certificates series 2013-C12.

Key Rating Drivers

The affirmations reflect the overall stable performance of the
pool.  The pool has experienced no realized losses to date and no
loans are in special servicing.  Three loans appear on the
servicer Watchlist; one due to minor deferred maintenance issues
identified in a recent inspection; the other two due to debt
service coverage ratios (DSCR) below 1.10x as reported on interim
June 30, 2014 financials.  Loans representing 85.5% of the pool
reported year-end (YE) 2013 financial information.  For these
loans, the net operating income increased by 5.0% from issuance.

As of the September 2014 distribution date, the pool's aggregate
principal balance has been reduced by 0.9% to $1.26 billion from
$1.27 billion at issuance.  No loans are defeased.  There are no
interest shortfalls.

The largest loan (10.3% of the pool) is secured by a 408,996
square foot (sf) retail outlet center located in Merrimack, NH.
The collateral is approximately 99.5% occupied and includes a Saks
Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH (6.85% of net rentable area [NRA], expires
2022), Bloomingdales The Outlet Store (5.85% of NRA, expires
2023), Polo Ralph Lauren (3.86% of NRA, expires 2022), Nike
Factory Store (3.18% of NRA, expires 2017), Hanesbrands (2.58% of
NRA) and Gap Outlet Store (2.57% of NRA).  The property was
completed in June 2012 and is sponsored by Simon Property Group.
Fitch annualized the servicer reported DSCR indicating a 1.91x
DSCR for YE 2013 compared to 1.75x at issuance.  Occupancy was
reported to be 99.5% as of first-quarter 2014.  Performance at the
property has been stable, with net operating income (NOI) up
approximately 12.3% from issuance.

The next largest loan (7.0% of the pool) is secured by a leasehold
interest in 15 MetroTech Center, a 19-story, class A office tower
located in Downtown Brooklyn, NY.  The property consists of
649,492 sf, including 642,734 sf of office space, 6,758 sf of
ground-floor retail space and 113 below-grade parking spaces.  The
property was built in 2003 and is one of the newest buildings in
MetroTech Center.  The $170 million mortgage loan, of which the
controlling $90 million pari passu portion is pledged as
collateral to the MSBAM 2013-C12 trust, is sponsored by Forest
City Enterprises, Inc., which developed the property in 2003.  The
property is subject to a 99-year ground lease from the City of New
York, which commenced on Dec. 31, 2001.

Approximately 97% of the NRA is leased to investment-grade
tenants, including WellPoint Holding Corp. (60.4% of NRA; rated
'BBB+' by Fitch) and the City of New York (36.3% of NRA; rated
'AA' by Fitch).  The WellPoint lease (60% of NRA) expires in June
2020, and the tenant is expected to vacate upon lease expiration,
as most of its space is currently subleased.  A reserve was
created at closing to sweep 100% of excess cash flow, subject to a
cap of $4.4 million per year, to fund retenanting costs associated
with the Wellpoint lease.  Performance at the property has been
stable.  The servicer reported DSCR as of first-quarter 2014 was
1.67x compared to 1.51x at issuance.  Servicer reported occupancy
was 99.4% as of the same period compared to 97.8% at issuance.

The third largest loan (6.6% of the pool) is secured by City Creek
Center, a 626,034 sf, two-story, urban retail and lifestyle center
constructed in 2012 (of which 348,637 sf is collateral for the
loan) in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah.  The property is anchored
by Macy's and Nordstrom (both of which are non-collateral), with
major tenants including Forever 21, H&M, The Gap, Anthropologie,
The Cheesecake Factory, Love Culture and Restoration Hardware.
Notable in-line tenants include Apple, Microsoft, Tiffany and
Rolex.  Given the recent stabilization of the property, limited
historical tenant sales figures are available.  Initial June 30,
2014 tenant sales indicate a slight decline in tenant sales per sf
on a year-over-year basis; however, the dollar amount of sales per
sf is consistent with comparable properties.  Occupancy as of
first-quarter 2014 was reported to be 100%.  The DSCR as of the
same period was 2.18x.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A-1 through G remain Stable due to
overall stable collateral performance.  No rating changes are
expected in the next few years unless there is a material
deterioration in occupancy or cash flow at any of the properties.

Fitch affirms these classes as indicated:

   -- $68.8 million class A-1 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $161.2 million class A-2 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $107.2 million class A-SB at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $260 million class A-3 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $284.7 million class A-4 at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $105.3 million class A-S* at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $75.0 million class B* at 'AA-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $52.6 million class C* at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $232.9 million class PST* at 'A-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $52.6 million class D at 'BBB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $19.1 million class E at 'BB+sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $20.7 million class F at 'BB-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $14.4 million class G at 'B-sf', Outlook Stable;
   -- $987.3 million class X-A at 'AAAsf', Outlook Stable;

* Class A-S, class B, and class C certificates may be exchanged
  for class PST certificates, and class PST certificates may be
  exchanged for class A-S, class B, and class C certificates.

Fitch does not rate the class H or the interest only class X-C
certificates.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Moody's Affirms Ca Rating on 2001-1 Certificates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the rating of Nortel
Networks Lease Pass-Through Trust, Pass-Through Trust
Certificates, Series 2001-1 lease obligations as follows:

  Certificates, Affirmed Ca; previously on Nov 14, 2013 Upgraded
  to Ca

Ratings Rationale

The rating was affirmed based on the expected recovery of
principal and interest and uncertainty surrounding the ongoing
legal proceedings relating to Nortel's 2009 bankruptcy. The
certificate has incurred $30.9 million principal loss in addition
to the $13.7 million in cumulative interest shortfalls.

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

The ratings of Credit Tenant Lease (CTL) deals are primarily based
on the senior unsecured debt rating (or the corporate family
rating) of the tenants leasing the real estate collateral
supporting the bonds. Other factors that are also considered are
Moody's dark value of the collateral (value based on the property
being vacant or dark), which is used to determine a recovery rate
upon a loan's default and the rating of the residual insurance
provider, if applicable. Factors that may cause an upgrade of the
ratings include an upgrade in the rating of the corporate tenant
or significant loan paydowns or amortization which results in a
higher dark loan to value. Factors that may cause a downgrade of
the ratings include a downgrade in the rating of the corporate
tenant or the residual insurance provider.

Methodology Underlying The Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Commercial Real
Estate Finance: Moody's Approach to Rating Credit Tenant Lease
Financings" published in November 2011.

No model was used in this review.

Deal Performance

This Credit Tenant Lease (CTL) transaction was originally
supported by a mortgage on two mixed-use buildings situated in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, which were 100% leased to
Nortel Networks Inc. (Nortel) under two leases. Nortel filed
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on January 14, 2009 and rejected
one of two leases on March 31, 2010. The property associated with
the rejected lease -- Network Center -- was liquidated on October
28, 2011. The sale of the property resulted in a principal paydown
of $38 million after fees plus a write-down of approximately $30.9
million. The remaining property -- Gateway Center -- continues to
support the trust, and is subleased to six tenants. The bankruptcy
proceedings are still on-going. Payments to the trust are current
based on the reduced principal balance.

The final distribution date of the Certificate is August 9, 2016.
Based on Nortel's originally scheduled lease payments during the
initial lease term, there was a $75 million balloon payment due at
the maturity of the Certificates. To mitigate this balloon risk,
the transaction was structured with a surety bond issued by ZC
Specialty Insurance Company. Following a merger, the surety bond
is now an obligation of Centre Reinsurance (US) Limited,
(financial strength rating A1). The surety bond is expected to
cover in full any outstanding principal balloon payment
attributable to Gateway Center.


PALMER SQUARE 2014-1: S&P Affirms 'BB' Rating on Class D Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services affirmed its ratings on Palmer
Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 LLC's $412.25
million floating-rate notes following the transaction's effective
date as of Aug. 26, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 Ltd./Palmer Square CLO 2014-1 LLC

Class                      Rating                       Amount
                                                       (mil. $)
A-1                        AAA (sf)                     288.00
A-2                        AA (sf)                       49.50
B (deferrable)             A (sf)                        36.00
C (deferrable)             BBB (sf)                      22.50
D (deferrable)             BB (sf)                       16.25


PREFERRED TERM XVIII: S&P Raises Rating on Class A-2 Notes to B+
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
A-1 and A-2 notes from Preferred Term Securities XVIII Ltd., a
U.S. cash flow trust-preferred collateralized debt obligation
(CDO) transaction, and removed them from CreditWatch, where they
were placed with positive implications on July 2, 2014.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction's
performance using data from the June 2014 quarterly trustee report
and reflect improved coverage ratios from paydowns on the senior
tranches, which generally have accelerated over the past year due
to trust preferred securities redeeming in the underlying
portfolio.  In addition, the class A-1 and A-2 notes have also
benefitted from excess spread that was captured because of
coverage (or overcollateralization) test failures.  Finally, the
upgrades reflect the improved credit quality of the underlying
collateral portfolio of trust-preferred securities, which are
mainly issued by banks.

Since S&P's previous rating actions in June 2012, the aggregate
balance of defaulted and deferred obligations decreased by $51.82
million, primarily because several of the collateral portfolio's
bank trust-preferred securities that were deferring payments cured
their deferrals and have since become current.

The transaction continues to fail its class B mezzanine coverage
test, diverting all available interest proceeds to pay down the
class A-1, A-2, and B notes, pro rata, in line with the
transaction documents.  After the June 2014 payment period, the
remaining class A-1 note balance is $250.97 million, equal to
67.45% of its original balance, down from $329.50 million in March
2012, which was used for S&P's June 2012 rating actions.

The transaction is also holding a zero coupon reserve account
strip (at a $3.50 million face value), which was stripped from
bonds issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association.  At
strip maturity in May 2015, the proceeds will be deposited into
the principal collection account and may be used to pay down the
rated notes, which will further benefit the coverage ratios.

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 or ultimate
principal, or both, to each of the rated tranches.  The cash flow
analysis results 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.

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 further
rating actions as it deems necessary.

CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND KEY METRICS COMPARISON

Preferred Term Securities XVIII Ltd.

                           Notional balance (mil. $)
Class                      March 2012(i)           June 2014(ii)
A-1                        329.50                  250.97
A-2                        86.84                    86.46
B                          80.73                    77.51
C                          83.47                    86.71
D                          46.49                    49.24

Coverage tests (%)
Senior (A-1 and A-2)       109.67                     135.41
B                          92.00                      110.11
C                          78.88                      91.08
D                          73.08                      82.94

(i) S&P used the March 2012 trustee report for its June 2012
     rating actions.
(ii) Following the June 2014 distribution date.

RATINGS LIST

Preferred Term Securities XVIII Ltd.

                     Rating      Rating
Class   Identifier   To          From
A-1     74042WAA2    BBB- (sf)   BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos
A-2     74042WAB0    B+ (sf)     CCC+ (sf)/Watch Pos


REALT 2014-1: Fitch Rates Class G Certificates 'Bsf'
----------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned the following expected ratings and
Rating Outlooks to Real Estate Asset Liquidity Trust's (REAL-T)
commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2014-1:

-- C$241,680,000 class A 'AAAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$7,015,000 class B 'AAsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$9,120,000 class C 'Asf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$7,717,000 class D 'BBBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$3,507,000 class E 'BBB-sf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$3,157,000 class F 'BBsf'; Outlook Stable;
-- C$2,806,000 class G 'Bsf'; Outlook Stable.

All currencies are in Canadian dollars (CAD).

Fitch does not rate the $280,615,596 (notional balance) interest-
only class X or the non-offered $5,613,596 class H certificate.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,
primary assets of which are 34 loans secured by 46 commercial
properties located in Canada having an aggregate principal balance
of approximately $280.6 million as of the cutoff date. The loans
were originated or acquired by Royal Bank of Canada, IMC Limited
Partnership, and Trez Commercial Mortgage Limited Partnership.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction's
collateral, including site inspections on 82.9% of the properties
by balance, cash flow analysis of 100%, and asset summary reviews
on 100% of the pool.

The transaction has a Fitch stressed debt service coverage ratio
(DSCR) of 1.15x, a Fitch stressed loan-to-value (LTV) of 110.2%,
and a Fitch debt yield of 9.22%. Fitch's aggregate net cash flow
represents a variance of 5.9% to issuer cash flows.

Key Rating Drivers

Canadian Loan Attributes and Historical Performance: The ratings
reflect strong historical Canadian commercial real estate loan
performance, including a low delinquency rate and low historical
losses of less than 0.1%, as well as positive loan attributes,
such as short amortization schedules, recourse to the borrower and
additional guarantors.

Fitch Leverage: The pool has a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.15x and
110.2%, respectively, which represents slightly higher leverage
than recent Canadian multiborrower deals. The IMSCI 2014-5 deal
had a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.16x and 98.2%, respectively, and the
IMSCI 2013-4 deal had a Fitch DSCR and LTV of 1.16x and 100.2%,
respectively. The leverage is slightly higher than the first-half
2014 average for U.S. CMBS, which had an LTV of 105.6%.

Amortization: The pool has a weighted average amortization term of
26.7 years, which represents faster amortization than U.S. conduit
loans. There are no partial or full interest-only loans. The
pool's maturity balance represents a paydown of 16.3% of the
closing balance.

Sponsor Concentration: Approximately 20% of the pool is sponsored
by one of three REITs managed by Skyline Wealth Management Inc.

Rating Sensitivities

Fitch performed two model-based break-even analyses to determine
the level of cash flow and value deterioration the pool could
withstand prior to $1 of loss being experienced by the 'BBB-sf'
and 'AAAsf' rated classes. Fitch found that the REAL-T 2014-1 pool
could withstand a 41.3% decline in value (based on appraised
values at issuance) and an approximately 12.1% decrease to the
most recent actual cash flow prior to experiencing a $1 of loss to
the 'BBB-sf' rated class. Additionally, Fitch found that the pool
could withstand a 47.3% decline in value and an approximately 21%
decrease in the most recent actual cash flow prior to experiencing
$1 of loss to any 'AAAsf' rated class.

Key Rating Drivers and Rating Sensitivities are further described
in the accompanying transaction report.

The master and special servicer is First National Financial LP,
which is unrated by Fitch. However, Fitch performed a limited
scope review which included a discussion with management, and has
begun the full servicer review process.


SASCO 2005-S7: Moody's Hikes Rating on Class M1 Debt to Ca
----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of 8 tranches
issued by six RMBS transactions, and downgraded the ratings of 3
tranches in one RMBS transaction. The collateral backing these
deals primarily consists of closed end second lien and home equity
line of credit loans.

Issuer: GreenPoint Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-1

Cl. A, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2010 Confirmed at
Caa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Issuer: GreenPoint Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-2

Cl. A-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Cl. A-2, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Nov 4, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Financial Guarantor: Ambac Assurance Corporation (Segregated
Account - Unrated)

Issuer: Irwin Whole Loan Home Equity Trust 2005-B

Cl. 2M-1, Downgraded to A3 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2010
Downgraded to A1 (sf)

Cl. 2M-2, Downgraded to Baa2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2010
Confirmed at Baa1 (sf)

Cl. 2M-4, Downgraded to Caa2 (sf); previously on Jun 30, 2010
Confirmed at B3 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-4

Cl. M-1, Upgraded to B3 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-6

Cl. A, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Issuer: SACO I Trust 2005-WM1

Cl. M-3, Upgraded to Caa1 (sf); previously on Sep 2, 2010
Downgraded to Caa3 (sf)

Issuer: Structured Asset Securities Corp Trust 2005-S7 (SASCO)

Cl. A2, Upgraded to B2 (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2010 Downgraded
to Caa2 (sf)

Cl. M1, Upgraded to Ca (sf); previously on Jul 6, 2010 Downgraded
to C (sf)

Ratings Rationale

The rating actions are a result of the recent performance review
of these pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations on
the collateral. The ratings upgraded are primarily due to the
build-up in credit enhancement due to sequential pay structure,
non-amortizing subordinate bonds, overcollateralization, and
availability of excess spread. The ratings downgraded are
primarily due to the deterioration in credit enhancement due to
amortizing subordinate bonds. Performance in the affected
transactions has remained generally stable since Moody's last
review.

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

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

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 6.1% in August 2014 from 7.2%
in August 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.


SOUTHFORK CLO: S&P Raises Rating on Class C Notes From 'BB+'
------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services raised its ratings on the class
B and C notes from Southfork CLO Ltd., a collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) transaction managed by Highland Capital
Management L.P., and removed them from CreditWatch, where S&P had
placed them with positive implications on Aug. 29, 2014.  At the
same time, S&P affirmed its 'AAA (sf)' ratings on the class A-3a
and A-3b notes from the same transaction.

S&P raised its ratings on the class B and C notes after paydowns
to the senior notes improved the credit support at the notes'
previous rating levels.

The transaction is in its amortization phase and continues to pay
down the class A notes.  Since S&P's Oct. 2013 rating actions,
when it raised its ratings on the class A-2, A-3a, A-3b, B, and C
notes and affirmed the ratings on the class A-1 notes, the
transaction has fully paid down the class A-1 and A-2 notes and
commenced paying down the class A-3a and A-3b notes (pari passu).

After the most recent paydown on Aug. 1, 2014, the class A-3 note
balance was at 42% of the original issuance.  The lower balances
improved the overcollateralization (O/C) ratios, which the trustee
reported in the Aug. 2014 monthly report:

   -- The class A ratio is 1,099.19%, up from 178.17% in Aug.
      2013, which S&P used for its Oct. 2013 rating actions,

   -- The class B ratio is 242.52%, up from 139.61% in Aug. 2013,
      And

   -- The class C ratio is 140.56%, up from 116.20% in Aug. 2013.

In addition, the defaults have decreased during this period.  Per
the Aug. 2014 monthly trustee report, the defaults are $18.6
million, down from $31.4 million in August 2013.

S&P's analysis included a sensitivity test that evaluated the
impact of market value risk on the long-dated securities (those
scheduled to mature after the transaction's maturity date) in the
portfolio.  According to the Aug. 2014 trustee report, this
balance is 22.06% of the total assets, which has declined slightly
from 23.38% in Aug. 2013.  When calculated based on the performing
assets (i.e., excluding defaults and principal cash) as reported
in the latest monthly report, the percentage increased to 27.06%.

The rating on the class C notes was driven by S&P's largest-
obligor test, which intends to address the potential concentration
of exposure to obligors in the transaction's portfolio.

The 'AAA (sf)' affirmations on the class A-3a and A-3 notes
reflect the adequate credit support available at the notes'
current ratings.

S&P also 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
rates and macroeconomic scenarios.  In addition, S&P 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

                            Cash flow
       Previous             implied     Cash flow   Final
Class  rating               rating      cushion(i)  rating
A-3a   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    10.26%      AAA (sf)
A-3b   AAA (sf)             AAA (sf)    10.26%      AAA (sf)
B      AA+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    10.26%      AAA (sf)
C      BB+ (sf)/Watch Pos   AAA (sf)    10.26%      BBB+ (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-3a   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)   AAA (sf)
A-3b   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)   BBB+ (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-3a   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
A-3b   AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
B      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)
C      AAA (sf)     AAA (sf)      AAA (sf)     BBB+ (sf)

RATINGS RAISED AND REMOVED FROM CREDITWATCH

SOUTHFORK CLO Ltd.

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

RATINGS AFFIRMED

SOUTHFORK CLO Ltd.

Class        Rating

A-3a         AAA (sf)
A-3b         AAA (sf)


SUFFIELD CLO: Fitch Withdraws Dsf Ratings on 3 Note Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has downgraded and withdrawn Suffield CLO Limited
notes:

   -- Class V-A notes downgraded to 'Dsf' from 'Csf/RE 5%' and
      withdrawn;

   -- Class V-B notes downgraded to 'Dsf' from 'Csf/RE 5%' and
      withdrawn;

   -- Class L combination securities downgraded to 'Dsf' from
      'Csf' and withdrawn.

Key Rating Drivers

Suffield CLO, Limited (Suffield CLO) reached its legal final
maturity on Sept. 26, 2014, at which time the transaction received
and distributed $158,828 of principal proceeds to the notes.
These proceeds were insufficient to pay the remaining notes in
full.  As such, Fitch has downgraded all three classes to 'Dsf'
from 'Csf' and subsequently withdrew the ratings.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Since the transaction has matured, no sensitivities were applied.

Suffield CLO was an arbitrage, cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) that closed on Sept. 13, 2000 and was managed by
Babson Capital Management LLC.


TOYS 'R' US 2001-31: Moody's Cuts Cl. A-1 Certs Rating to Caa1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has downgraded the
ratings of the following certificates issued by Corporate Backed
Trust Certificates, Toys "R" Us Debenture-Backed Series 2001-31:

$13,090,000 Class A-1 Certificates due September 1, 2021;
Downgraded to Caa1; previously on March 10, 2011 Downgraded to
B3

$13,090,000 Notional Amount of 1.00% Interest-Only Class A-2
Certificates due September 1, 2021; Downgraded to Caa1;
previously on March 10, 2011 Downgraded to B3

Ratings Rationale

The transaction is a structured note whose ratings are based on
the rating of the Underlying Securities and the legal structure of
the transaction. The rating actions are a result of the change of
the rating of the underlying securities which are the $13,090,000
8.75% Debentures due September 1, 2021 issued by Toys "R" Us, Inc.
which was downgraded to Caa1 by Moody's on September 29, 2014.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in this rating was "Moody's
Approach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in April 2010.

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

Moody's says that the underlying securities are subject to a high
level of macroeconomic uncertainty, which is manifest in uncertain
credit conditions across the general economy. Because these
conditions could negatively affect the ratings on the underlying
securities, they could also negatively impact the rating on the
certificate.


VENTURE VII: Moody's Affirms Ba2 Rating on $11.4MM Cl. E Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on the
following notes issued by Venture VII CDO Limited:

$53,125,000 Class A-1B Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022, Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on Dec. 4,
2013 Affirmed Aa1 (sf)

$49,775,000 Class A-2 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022 (current outstanding balance of $40,199,895),
Upgraded to Aaa (sf); previously on December 4, 2013 Affirmed
Aa1 (sf)

$31,250,000 Class B Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes Due January 20, 2022, Upgraded to Aa2 (sf); previously on
Dec 4, 2013 Affirmed A1 (sf)

$32,350,000 Class C Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022, Upgraded to A3 (sf); previously on December 4,
2013 Affirmed Baa2 (sf)

$23,700,000 Class D Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022, Upgraded to Baa3 (sf); previously on Dec. 4,
2013 Affirmed Ba1 (sf)

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

$388,000,000 Class A-1A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022 (current outstanding balance of $305,065,951),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on December 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

$90,000,000 Class A-1AR Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022 (current outstanding balance of $70,762,721),
Affirmed Aaa (sf); previously on December 4, 2013 Affirmed Aaa
(sf)

$11,400,000 Class E Secured Deferrable Floating Rate Notes Due
January 20, 2022, Affirmed Ba2 (sf); previously on December 4,
2013 Affirmed Ba2 (sf)

Venture VII CDO Limited, 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 the end of the reinvestment period
in January 2014. The Class A notes have been paid down by
approximately 19% or $111.7 million since that time. Based on the
trustee's August 2014 report, the over-collateralization (OC)
ratios for the Class A/B, Class C, Class D and Class E notes are
reported at 123.64%, 116.13%, 111.18% and 108.95%, respectively,
versus January 2014 levels of 117.97%, 112.05%, 108.08% and
106.27%, respectively.

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% (2323)

Class A-1A: 0

Class A-1AR: 0

Class A-1B: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +2

Class C: +2

Class D: +3

Class E: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (3485)

Class A-1A: 0

Class A-1AR: 0

Class A-1B: -1

Class A-2: -1

Class B -1

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Class E: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

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

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,
weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weighted
average recovery rate, are based on its published methodology and
could differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base
case, Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing
par and principal proceeds balance of $615 million, defaulted par
of $15.7 million, a weighted average default probability of 21.17%
(implying a WARF of 2904), a weighted average recovery rate upon
default of 49.69%, a diversity score of 97 and a weighted average
spread of 4.06%.

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


                             *********

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, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***