UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, ~~2014~~2015

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

333-159791-04

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

0001528279

(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)

Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2011-2

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

333-159791-01

(Commission File Number of depositor)

0001176320

(Central Index Key Number of depositor)

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

0001530239

(Central Index Key Number of sponsor)

RWT Holdings, Inc.

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

New York

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the issuing entity)

38-3851354

38-3851355

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

c/o Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich Street, 14^th Floor

New York, New York

10013

(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)

(Zip Code)

(212) 816-5693

(Telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ¨ Yes x No

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. x Yes ¨ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). ¨ Yes x No

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

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Section 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

Not Applicable

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

Not Applicable

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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

Not applicable

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2011-2 transaction was terminated in 2015 pursuant to Section 7.03 of the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2014, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer, Citibank, N.A., as securities administrator and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. A copy of the Plan of Liquidation effecting such termination was previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 8-K dated December 1, 2015.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Omitted.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Omitted.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Omitted.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Omitted.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Omitted.

PART II

Omitted.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Omitted.

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

Omitted.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Omitted.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

Omitted.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.

Omitted.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Omitted.

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

Omitted.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Omitted.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

Omitted.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, Significant Obligor Financial Information.

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

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, Significant Enhancement Provider Financial Information.

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

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

On or about December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against the depositor, Redwood Trust, Inc. (“Redwood Trust”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Seattle Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The FHLB-Seattle alleges claims under the Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and seeks to rescind the purchase of the Seattle Certificate and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received) as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seattle Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, as of December 31, 2014, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $115.8 million of principal and $11.1 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. As of December 31, 2014, the Seattle Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $17.5 million. The claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to the depositor and Redwood Trust. The depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. The FHLB-Seattle’s claims against the underwriters of this RMBS were not dismissed and remain pending. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On to orunderwrite ~~about~~the ~~July 15~~loans, ~~2010,~~and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The ~~Charles~~FHLB-Seattle ~~Schwab Corporation~~alleges claims under the Securities Act of Washington (~~“Schwab”~~Section 21.20.005, et seq.) ~~filed~~and aseeks ~~complaint~~to rescind inthe purchase of the ~~Superior~~Seattle ~~Court~~Certificate ~~for~~and to collect interest on the ~~State~~original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of ~~California~~8% per inannum ~~San~~from ~~Francisco~~the date of original purchase (~~case~~net ~~number~~of ~~CGC-10-501610~~interest received) ~~against~~as ~~the~~well ~~depositor~~as attorneys’ fees and 26costs. ~~other~~The ~~defendants~~Seattle ~~(collectively~~Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, ~~the~~and, ~~“Schwab~~as ~~Defendants”) alleging~~of ~~that~~December 31, 2015, the ~~Schwab~~FHLB-Seattle ~~Defendants~~has ~~made~~received ~~false~~approximately or$120 ~~misleading~~million ~~statements~~of inprincipal ~~offering~~and ~~materials~~$11 ~~for~~million ~~various~~of ~~residential~~interest payments ~~mortgage-backed~~in ~~securities~~respect ~~sold~~of orthe ~~issued~~Seattle byCertificate. As of December 31, 2015, the ~~Schwab~~Seattle ~~Defendants~~Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $13 million. ~~Schwab~~The ~~alleged~~claims ~~only~~were asubsequently ~~claim~~dismissed for ~~negligent~~lack ~~misrepresentation under~~of ~~California~~personal ~~state~~jurisdiction as ~~law~~to ~~against~~ the depositor and ~~sought~~Redwood ~~unspecified~~Trust. ~~damages~~The depositor and ~~attorneys’~~Redwood ~~fees~~Trust ~~and~~agreed ~~costs~~to ~~from~~indemnify the ~~depositor.~~underwriters ~~Schwab~~of ~~claims that~~ the ~~depositor~~2005-4 ~~made~~RMBS ~~false~~for orcertain ~~misleading~~losses ~~statements~~and inexpenses ~~offering~~they ~~materials~~might ~~for~~incur as a ~~mortgage~~result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, ~~pass-through~~without ~~certificate~~limitation, ~~(the~~certain ~~“Schwab~~legal ~~Certificate”)~~expenses. ~~issued~~The inFHLB-Seattle’s claims against the ~~2005-4~~underwriters of this RMBS ~~and~~were ~~purchased~~not bydismissed ~~Schwab~~and remain pending. ~~Specifically,~~Regardless of the ~~complaint~~outcome ~~alleges~~of ~~that~~this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) against the depositor and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”) alleging that the Schwab Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. Schwab alleged only a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law against the depositor and sought unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from the depositor. Schwab claims that the depositor made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Schwab Certificate”) issued in the 2005-4 RMBS and purchased by Schwab. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Schwab Certificate. On November 14, 2014, Schwab voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its negligent misrepresentation claim, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of the depositor from the action. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $~~14.8~~15 million, and, as of December 31, ~~2014~~2015, Schwab has received approximately $~~12.9~~ 13 million of principal and $1.3 million of interest payments have been made in respect of the Schwab Certificate. As of December 31, ~~2014~~2015, the Schwab Certificate had a remaining outstanding principal amount of approximately $1.9 million. The depositor and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named and remain as defendants in the action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, the depositor and Redwood Trust could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

The business of the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates has included, and continues to include, activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of residential mortgage loans. In addition, the business of the sponsor has, in the past, included activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of debt obligations and other assets through the issuance of collateralized debt obligations (commonly referred to as CDO transactions). Because of their involvement in the securitization and CDO businesses, the sponsor, the depositor, the seller and their affiliates could become the subject of litigation relating to these businesses, including additional litigation of the type described above, and could also become the subject of governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or lawsuits and governmental authorities could allege that these entities violated applicable law or regulation in the conduct of their business.

In fact, the sponsor and its affiliates have received, and responded to, information requests and subpoenas from two governmental authorities (one by the SEC relating to the sponsor’s CDO business and one by the National Credit Union Administration relating to a residential mortgage securitization conducted by the sponsor and the depositor). It is possible that the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates might not be successful in defending or responding to any litigation, governmental investigation or related action and any losses incurred as a result of the resolution of any such action or investigation could have a material adverse effect on the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates. In any case, regardless of the merits of any allegation or legal action that may be brought against the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates, or of their success in defending against such allegations or legal actions, the costs of defending against any such allegation or legal action may be significant or material and could have a material adverse effect on the sponsor, the depositor, the seller or their affiliates.

The depositor has been notified by Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) and U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), respectively, of material pending legal proceedings to which Citibank, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank are, respectively, subject in connection with their role as trustee on certain RMBS transactions. This Sequoia transaction is not a party to nor subject to the pending legal proceedings.

The disclosure that the depositor received from each of Citibank, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank, respectively, is included here:

Citibank, N.A.

Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as Securities Administrator of this RMBS transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions. ~~One~~Certain ~~such proceeding was a civil action filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court~~ of ~~the~~these ~~State of New York on June 18, 2014 by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which~~ Citibank ~~serves or did serve~~ as trustee, asserting claims for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on Citibank’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the 48 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw this action. On the same day, a smaller subset of similar plaintiff investors in 27 private-~~label~~related ~~RMBS~~matters ~~trusts~~are ~~for~~disclosed ~~which Citibank serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in state court~~herein.

~~There~~On ~~can~~June 18, be2014, noa ~~assurances~~civil asaction towas ~~the~~filed ~~outcome~~against ofCitibank ~~litigation~~in or the ~~possible~~Supreme ~~impact~~Court of ~~litigation~~the onState ~~the~~of ~~trustee~~New orYork ~~the~~by ~~RMBS~~a ~~trusts.~~group ~~However,~~of ~~Citibank~~investors ~~denies liability~~in ~~and~~48 ~~intends~~private-label RMBS totrusts ~~vigorously~~for ~~defend~~which ~~against~~Citibank ~~the~~allegedly ~~litigation.~~serves ~~Furthermore,~~or ~~neither~~did ~~the~~serve ~~above-disclosed~~as ~~litigation~~trustee, ~~nor~~asserting ~~any~~claims ~~other~~for ~~pending~~purported ~~legal~~violations ~~proceeding~~of ~~involving~~the ~~Citibank~~Trust ~~will~~Indenture ~~materially~~Act ~~affect~~of ~~Citibank’s~~1939, ~~ability~~breach toof ~~perform~~contract, ~~its~~breach ~~duties under~~of ~~the~~fiduciary ~~Pooling~~duty &and ~~Servicing~~negligence ~~Agreement~~based ~~for~~on ~~the~~Citibank’s ~~RMBS~~alleged failure ~~trusts.~~to

perform its duties as trustee for the 48 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw this action. On the same day, a smaller subset of similar plaintiff investors in 27 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new civil action against Citibank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar claims as the prior action filed in the state court. In January 2015, the court closed plaintiffs’ original state court action. Citibank’s motion to dismiss the federal complaint was fully briefed as of May 13, 2015. On September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24 of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to the other three trusts. That case, involving the three remaining trusts, is pending.

On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee. This case includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action, and one additional trust. The investors assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of New York’s Streit Act. Citibank filed a motion to dismiss this case on February 26, 2016.

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for a financial institution filed a civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York. This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which Citibank formerly served as trustee. FDIC asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act. Citibank is jointly briefing a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, entities that have also been sued by FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and whose cases are all in front of Judge Carter.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of litigation or the possible impact of litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Citibank denies liability and continues to vigorously defend against these litigations. Furthermore, neither the above-disclosed litigations nor any other pending legal proceeding involving Citibank will materially affect Citibank’s ability to perform its duties as securities administrator under the pooling and servicing agreement for this RMBS transaction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against Wells Fargo Bank, ~~N.A.,~~ alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 ~~residential mortgage backed securities (“~~RMBS “) trusts (the “Complaint “”). In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, ~~N.A.~~ alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to to (i) enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default purportedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases (collectively, the “Additional Complaints”) alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, ~~N.A.~~ and other trustees in the same court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases have been consolidated before the same judge. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Complaint; the District Court also allowed Plaintiffs to file amended complaints if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank~~, N.A.~~ denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest ~~the~~ the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

U.S. Bank National Association

OnSince ~~June 18,~~ 2014, avarious ~~civil~~plaintiffs ~~complaint~~or ~~was~~groups ~~filed in the Supreme Court~~ of ~~the State of New York~~plaintiffs, ~~New~~primarily ~~York County~~investors, byhave afiled ~~group~~claims ~~of institutional investors~~ against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank “”), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The plaintiffs ~~are~~or ~~investment~~plaintiff ~~funds~~groups ~~formed by~~have ~~nine~~filed ~~investment~~substantially advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield, DZ Bank, Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport to be bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities between 2004 and 2008. According to the plaintiffs, cumulative losses for these RMBS trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of the complaint. The complaint is one of six similar complaints ~~filed~~ against ~~RMBS~~other RMBS trustees, (including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo~~) by certain of these plaintiffs~~. The ~~complaint~~complaints against U.S. Bank ~~alleges~~allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and asserts causes of action based upon the trustee’s purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaint also asserts that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by appropriate standards of care following events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a substantially similar complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal civil complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts. In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court complaint was granted. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and other trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions.

~~There~~ assert ~~can~~causes beof noaction ~~assurances~~based asupon to the ~~outcome~~trustee’s ofpurported ~~the~~failure ~~litigation,~~to orenforce ~~the~~repurchase ~~possible~~obligations ~~impact~~ of ~~the~~mortgage ~~litigation~~loan onsellers ~~the~~for ~~trustee~~alleged orbreaches ~~the~~of ~~RMBS~~representations ~~trusts.~~and ~~However,~~warranties concerning Uloan quality.~~S. Bank~~ ~~denies~~The ~~liability~~complaints ~~and~~also ~~believes~~assert that itthe ~~has~~trustee ~~performed~~failed ~~its~~to ~~obligations~~notify ~~under~~securityholders ~~the~~of ~~RMBS~~purported ~~trusts~~events inof ~~good~~default ~~faith,~~allegedly ~~that~~caused ~~its~~by ~~actions~~breaches ~~were~~of ~~not~~servicing ~~the~~standards ~~cause~~by ofmortgage ~~losses~~loan toservicers ~~investors~~ and that itthe ~~has~~trustee ~~meritorious~~purportedly failed ~~defenses,~~to ~~and~~abide itby ~~intends~~a toheightened ~~contest~~standard ~~the plaintiffs’~~of ~~claims~~care ~~vigorously~~following alleged events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described above with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

There can be no assurance as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB, Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

The seller, the sponsor and the depositor are each either directly or indirectly wholly-owned subsidiaries of Redwood Trust, Inc. There is not currently, and there was not during the past two years, any material business relationship, agreement, arrangement, transaction or understanding that is or was entered into outside the ordinary course of business or is or was on terms other than would be obtained in an arm’s length transaction with an unrelated third party, between (a) any of the seller, the sponsor, the depositor and the issuing entity on the one hand and (b) any of the trustee, any servicer, the custodian, the master servicer, the securities administrator or either originator of the mortgage loans on the other hand.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB, Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The reports on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance are attached hereto under Item 15.

The registrant has prepared the Table below in connection with this transaction. The Table shows, in one compiled format, which entity participating in a servicing function for this transaction was assigned responsibility for each criterion in Item 1122(d). In the Table below, certain criteria are not applicable, given the structure of the offering, and accordingly no entity is assigned responsibility for such criteria.

Also, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) the trustee, does not participate in any servicing function for the transaction that is the subject of this 10-K filing. Therefore, there is no reference to U.S. Bank in the chart below; nor does this 10-K filing include any assessment or auditor report from U.S. Bank. Finally, any discrepancies between the chart below and the assessment of compliance exhibit provided by any party listed in the chart is explained by the fact that the chart is specific to the transaction that is the subject of this 10-K filing, whereas each party’s respective assessment of compliance is issued on a platform basis and includes coverage of other additional transactions that are not the subject of this 10-K filing.

SEQUOIA RESIDENTIAL FUNDING, INC.

SEMT 2011-2

Regulation AB 1122(d)

Regulation ABReference

Servicing Criteria

WellsFargo BankN.A., asMasterServicer

Citibank,N.A., asSecuritiesAdministratorand PayingAgent

PHHMortgageCorp., asServicer

FirstRepublicBank, asServicer

SunTrustMortgage,asServicer

SelectPortfolioServicing,Inc., asServicer

WellsFargoBank,N.A., asServicer

WellsFargoBankN.A., as Custodian

General Servicing Considerations

1122(d)(1)(i)

Policies and procedures are instituted to monitor any performance or other triggers and events of default in accordance with the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(1)(ii)

If any material servicing activities are outsourced to third parties, policies and procedures are instituted to monitor the third party’s performance and compliance with such servicing activities.

1122(d)(1)(iii)

Any requirements in the transaction agreements to maintain a back-up servicer for the pool assets are maintained.

N/A

1122(d)(1)(iv)

A fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy is in effect on the party participating in the servicing function throughout the reporting period in the amount of coverage required by and otherwise in accordance with the terms of the transaction agreements.

Cash Collection and Administration

1122(d)(2)(i)

Payments on pool assets are deposited into the appropriate bank collection accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days following receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

the appropriate bank collection accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days following receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(ii)

Disbursements made via wire transfer on behalf of an obligor or to an investor are made only by authorized personnel.

1122(d)(2)(iii)

Advances of funds or guarantees regarding collections, cash flows or distributions, and any interest or other fees charged for such advances, are made, reviewed and approved as specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(iv)

The related accounts for the transaction, such as cash reserve accounts or accounts established as a form of over collateralization, are separately maintained (e.g., with respect to commingling of cash) as set forth in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(v)

Each collection account is maintained at a federally insured depository institution as set forth in the transaction agreements. For purposes of this criterion, “federally insured depository institution” with respect to a foreign financial institution means a foreign financial institution that meets the requirements of Rule 13k-1(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act.

1122(d)(2)(vi)

Unissued checks are safeguarded so as to prevent unauthorized access.

respect to a foreign financial institution means a foreign financial institution that meets the requirements of Rule 13k-1(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act.

1122(d)(2)(vii)

1122(d)(2)(vi)

Unissued checks are safeguarded so as to prevent unauthorized access.

approved by someone other than the person who prepared the reconciliation; and (D) contain explanations for reconciling items. These reconciling items are resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(2)(vii)

Reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts, including collection accounts and related bank clearing accounts. These reconciliations are (A) mathematically accurate; (B) prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements; (C) reviewed and approved by someone other than the person who prepared the reconciliation; and (D) contain explanations for reconciling items. These reconciling items are resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Investor Remittances and Reporting

1122(d)(3)(i)

Reports to investors, including those to be filed with the Commission, are maintained in accordance with the transaction agreements and applicable Commission requirements. Specifically, such reports (A) are prepared in accordance with timeframes and other terms set forth in the

X (Except NOT 1122(d) (3)(i)(C))

the Commission, are maintained in accordance with the transaction agreements and applicable Commission requirements. Specifically, such reports (A) are prepared in accordance with timeframes and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements; (B) provide information calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements; (C) are filed with the Commission as required by its rules and regulations; and

transaction agreements; (B) provide information calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements; (C) are filed with the Commission as required by its rules and regulations; and (D) agree with investors’ or the trustee’s records as to the total unpaid principal balance and number of pool assets serviced by the Servicer.

(D) agree with investors’ or the trustee’s records as to the total unpaid principal balance and number of pool assets serviced by the Servicer.

1122(d)(3)(ii)

Amounts due to investors are allocated and remitted in accordance with timeframes, distribution priority and other terms set forth in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(3)(iii)

Disbursements made to an investor are posted within two business days to the Servicer’s investor records, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(3)(iv)

Amounts remitted to investors per the investor reports agree with cancelled checks, or other form of payment, or custodial bank statements.

1122(d)(3)(iv)

Amounts remitted to investors per the investor reports agree with cancelled checks, or other form of payment, or custodial bank statements.

Pool Asset Administration

1122(d)(4)(i)

Collateral or security on pool assets is maintained as required by the transaction agreements or related pool asset documents.

1122(d)(4)(ii)

Pool assets and related documents are safeguarded as required by the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(iii)

Any additions, removals or substitutions to the asset pool are made, reviewed & approved in accordance with any conditions or requirements in the transaction agreements.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(iv)

Payments on pool assets, including any payoffs, made in accordance with the related pool asset documents are posted to the Servicer’s obligor records maintained no more than two business days after receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements, and allocated to principal, interest or other items (e.g., escrow) in accordance with the related pool asset documents.

N/A

other items (e.g., escrow) in accordance with the related pool asset documents.

1122(d)(4)(v)

The Servicer’s records regarding the pool assets agree with the Servicer’s records with respect to an obligor’s unpaid principal balance.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(v)

The Servicer’s records regarding the pool assets agree with the Servicer’s records with respect to an obligor’s unpaid principal balance.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(vi)

Changes with respect to the terms or status of an obligor’s pool assets (e.g., loan modifications or re-agings) are made, reviewed and approved by authorized personnel in accordance with the transaction agreements and related pool asset documents.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(vii)

Loss mitigation or recovery actions (e.g., forbearance plans, modifications and deeds in lieu of foreclosure, foreclosures and repossessions, as applicable) are initiated, conducted and concluded in accordance with the timeframes or other requirements established by the transaction agreements.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(viii)

Records documenting collection efforts are maintained during the period a pool asset is delinquent in accordance with the transaction agreements. Such records are maintained on at least a monthly basis, or such other period specified in the transaction agreements, and describe the entity’s activities in monitoring delinquent pool assets including, for example, phone calls, letters and payment rescheduling plans in cases where delinquency is deemed temporary (e.g., illness or unemployment).

N/A

transaction agreements, and describe the entity’s activities in monitoring delinquent pool assets including, for example, phone calls, letters and payment rescheduling plans in cases where delinquency is deemed temporary (e.g., illness or unemployment).

1122(d)(4)(ix)

Adjustments to interest rates or rates of return for pool assets with variable rates are computed based on the related pool asset documents.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(x)

Regarding any funds held in trust for an obligor (such as escrow accounts): (A) such funds are analyzed, in accordance with the obligor’s pool asset documents, on at least an annual basis, or such other period specified in the transaction agreements; (B) interest on such funds is paid, or credited, to obligors in accordance with applicable pool asset documents and state laws; and (C) such funds are returned to the obligor within 30 calendar days of full repayment of the related pool assets, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(xi)

Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

N/A

related pool assets, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xi)

N/A

1122(d)(4)(xii)

Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the Servicer’s funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor’s error or omission.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(xiii)

Disbursements made on behalf of an obligor are posted within two business days to the obligor’s records maintained by the servicer, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

N/A

1122(d)(4)(xiv)

Delinquencies, charge-offs and uncollectible accounts are recognized and recorded in accordance with the transaction agreements.

XN/A*

1122(d)(4)(xv)

Any external enhancement or other support, identified in Item 1114(a)(1) through (3) or Item 1115 of Regulation AB, is maintained as set forth in the transaction agreements.

N/A

* The Revised PSA inadvertently and mistakenly indicates by “X” that Citibank performs Reg AB Item 1122(d)(4)(xvxiv). ~~Any~~However, ~~external~~this ~~enhancement~~Chart, oras ~~other~~well ~~support,~~as ~~identified~~Citibank’s management assessment report and report of the independent accountants are accurate in that Reg AB Item ~~1114~~1122(ad)(14)(xiv) ~~through~~is not performed by Citibank. This Reg AB Item 1122(3d)(4)(xiv) orservicing ~~Item~~criteria ~~1115~~function ofis ~~Regulation~~being ABperformed by other parties. In this SEMT 2011-2 transaction, the Reg AB Item 1122(d)(4)(xiv) servicing criteria function is ~~maintained~~performed by Wells Fargo, as ~~set~~master ~~forth~~servicer, inand ~~the~~by ~~transaction~~underlying ~~agreements.~~servicers ~~N/A~~PHH ~~N/A~~Mortgage ~~N/A~~Corporation, ~~N/A~~First ~~N/A~~Republic ~~N/A~~Bank, ~~N/A~~SunTrust Mortgage, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N/.A.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

The assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria for the twelve months ended December 31, ~~2014~~2015, furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. (the “~~2014~~2015 SunTrust Assessment”) for its platform, discloses that material instances of noncompliance occurred with respect to the servicing criteria described in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of Regulation AB. The ~~2014~~2015 SunTrust Assessment is attached to this Form 10-K as exhibit 33.4.

1122 (d)(2)(i)

Certain payments on pool assets were not deposited into the appropriate custodial bank accounts and related bank clearing accounts no more than two business days of receipt, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Remediation

As of May 2013, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. moved 194 custodial bank accounts from SunTrust Bank to Bank of New York Mellon due to the rating requirements and the decreased rating of SunTrust Bank. Certain transaction agreements require deposits into the custodial accounts either daily or within one business day. Due to the movement of the accounts from SunTrust Bank to Bank of New York Mellon funds are deposited into the accounts within two business days.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. is currently reviewing all related transaction agreements to determine which accounts can be transitioned to SunTrust Bank. These transitions are fully dependent on the SunTrust Bank credit rating. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. expects the situation to persist until SunTrust Bank is upgraded to the required credit ratings to make it an eligible entity to hold all of the accounts.

1122(d)(4)(vii)

Certain loss mitigation or recovery actions (e.g., forbearance plans, modifications and deeds in lieu of foreclosure, foreclosures and repossessions, as applicable) were not initiated, conducted and concluded in accordance with the timeframes or other requirements established by the transaction agreements.

Remediation

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. continued to experience foreclosure timeline delays due to extended processing timelines, environmental delays including those in the court system, and the implementation of new legislation and regulation.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. continues to enhance remediation plans initiated in prior years, and as a result overall foreclosure timelines ~~declined~~continued into ~~2014~~decline in 2015. In ~~addition,~~ 2014 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. created a new due diligence team focusing solely on severely aged loans. ~~SunTrust~~and ~~also created~~ reporting specific to the individual foreclosure milestones in each state. ~~Based~~These onchanges ~~these~~continue ~~efforts,~~in 2015 and SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. anticipates that overall foreclosure timelines will continue to decrease.

The above reported instances of material noncompliance with Regulation AB servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) did not involve the pool assets in this transaction.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a)

List the following documents filed as a part of the report:

(1)

Not Applicable

(2)

Not Applicable

(3)

Exhibits listed below are included as indicated below:

ExhibitNumber		Description
Exhibit Number		Description
(4)		Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2014, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer, Citibank, N.A., as securities administrator and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Form 8-K filed on January 6, 2014, Exhibit 20.2) (SEC File Number 333-159791-04)
(31)		Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
(33)		Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed issuers
		33.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		33.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		33.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		33.4 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		33.5 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(2)(i)
		33.6 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(4)(i- ii)
		33.7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
		33.8 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		33.9 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		33.10 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		33.11 Assurant, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
(34)		Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
		34.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		34.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		34.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		34.4 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		34.5 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
		34.6 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
		34.7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		34.8 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		34.9 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		34.10 Assurant, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

		34.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		34.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		34.4 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		34.5 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
		34.6 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
		34.7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		34.8 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		34.9 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		34.10 Assurant, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
(35)		Servicer Compliance Statement
		35.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		35.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		35.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		35.4 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		35.5 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		35.6 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		35.7 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		35.8 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(2)(i)
		35.9 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(4)(i- ii)

(b)

See subparagraph (a)(3) above.

(c)

Omitted.

SIGNATURES

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

Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. ~~(Depositor) /s/ Brett D. Nicholas Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)~~

~~Date:~~(Depositor) ~~March 30, 2015~~

/s/ Brett D. Nicholas

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Date: March 30, 2016

EXHIBIT INDEX

ExhibitNumber		Description
Exhibit Number		Description
(4)		Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2014, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as master servicer, Citibank, N.A., as securities administrator and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (incorporated by reference to Form 8-K filed on January 6, 2014, Exhibit 20.2) (SEC File Number 333-159791-04)
(31)		Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification
(33)		Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed issuers
		33.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		33.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		33.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		33.4 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		33.5 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(2)(i)
		33.6 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(4)(i- ii)
		33.7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
		33.8 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		33.9 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		33.10 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		33.11 Assurant, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
(34)		Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
		34.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		34.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		34.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		34.4 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		34.5 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
		34.6 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian
		34.7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		34.8 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		34.9 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		34.10 Assurant, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
(35)		Servicer Compliance Statement
		35.1 First Republic Bank, as Servicer
		35.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer
		35.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer
		35.4 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer
		35.5 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer
		35.6 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent
		35.7 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
		35.8 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(2)(i)
		35.9 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(4)(i- ii)



		35.2 PHH Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer

		35.3 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., as Servicer

		35.4 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer

		35.5 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Master Servicer

		35.6 Citibank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent

		35.7 SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer

		35.8 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(2)(i)

		35.9 SunTrust Bank, as Sub-Contractor for SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., as to Item 1122(d)(4)(i- ii)

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

x (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Filing Compare · Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2011-2