UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20202023

or

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number of the issuing entity: 333-191331-08

Central Index Key Number of the issuing entity: 0001639694

GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-GC30

(exact name of the issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the depositor: 0001004158

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II

(exact name of the depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001541502

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001541001

Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001558761

Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending, L.P.

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001682511

Starwood Mortgage Funding I LLC

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001576832

MC-Five Mile Commercial Mortgage Finance LLC

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

c/o U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association

as Certificate Administrator

190 S. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL

(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)

60603

(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(212) 902-1000

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

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 ☒ 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 ☒ 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. ☒ 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 (Section 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 (Section 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, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

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 NOTES

The Dallas Market Center Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 10.5% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date, is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the Dallas Market Center Mortgage Loan and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. This loan combination, including the Dallas Market Center Mortgage Loan, is being serviced and administered pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Exhibit Index describes exhibits provided by certain parties (in their capacities indicated on the Exhibit Index) with respect to the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 9.9% and 1.6%, respectively, of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date.  The Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan are each an asset of the issuing entity and are each part of a loan combination that includes (a) with respect to the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan, two other pari passu loans, which are not assets of the issuing entity or (b) with respect to the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan, one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. A pari passu portion of each loan combination was securitized in the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 transaction, Commission File Number 333-189017-08 (the “CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction”). These loan combinations, including the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan, are being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

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

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is the master servicer and special servicer of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the primary servicer and special servicer of the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan. As a result, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is a “servicer” as defined in Item 1108(a)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, in the capacities described above, because it is servicing mortgage loans that constituted 10% or more of the assets of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation reports and servicer compliance statements delivered by Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association in the capacities described above are listed in the Exhibit Index.

Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank is an affiliate of Cantor Commercial Real Estate Lending L.P., one of the sponsors.  Therefore, the Depositor included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K a servicer compliance statement for Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank pursuant to Item 1123.  Because Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank is servicing less than 5% of the pool assets, an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and an accountants’ attestation report pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not required by Regulation AB.  As the attestation made in the servicer compliance statement required by Item 1123 relates to a review of the servicing activities of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank under the applicable servicing agreement, and that review was conducted in conjunction with the servicer’s preparation of its assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, that assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and the accompanying accountants’ attestation report are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the sake of completeness.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is the custodian of the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan. As a result, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is a servicing function participant in the capacities described above, because it is servicing mortgage loans that constituted 5% or more of the assets of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports delivered by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in the capacities described above are listed in the Exhibit Index.

Situs Holdings, LLC is the operating advisor of the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan. As a result, Situs Holdings, LLC is a servicing function participant in the capacities described above, because it is servicing mortgage loans that constituted 5% or more of the assets of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date. The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports delivered by Situs Holdings, LLC in the capacities described above are listed in the Exhibit Index.

The assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria, accountants’ attestation reports and servicer compliance statements of the certificate administrator of the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan and the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan are omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K as the certificate administrator pursuant to the related pooling and servicing agreement or trust and servicing agreement does not perform any activities that address servicing criteria with respect to the issuing entity and because they are each not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB.

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Omitted.

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Omitted.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 1C.  Cybersecurity.

Omitted.

Item 2. Properties.

Omitted.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

Omitted.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Omitted.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

Omitted.[Reserved]

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.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.

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 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Omitted.

Item 14. Principal AccountingAccountant Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB

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

The Dallas Market Center Mortgage Loan (Control Number 1 on Annex A of the prospectus supplement of the registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on May 29, 2015 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5)) constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB as disclosed in the prospectus supplement. In accordance with Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the most recent unaudited net operating income of the significant obligor was $20,833,935.00$29,426,225.00 for the twelve-month period ended November 30, 2020.2023.

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.

The registrant knows of no material pending legal proceeding involving the trust or any party related to the trust, other than routine litigation incidental to the duties of those respective parties, and the following, with respect to U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as trustee and as certificate administrator, U.S. Bank National Association, as custodian, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee and as custodian, and custodian.

U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee or successor trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groups against U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused losses to investors as certificate administratora result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts. Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the trustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.

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, that it has meritorious defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously. However, U.S. Bank cannot assure you as custodian.to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts.

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

U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case while other prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans are litigated. On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases. On January 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrial purposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans, which remains pending.

U.S. Bank denies liability in the NCMSLT Action and believes it has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer in good faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of the agreements governing the DSTs and that it has meritorious defenses. It has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed an action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court alleging that DBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for 544 private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed the case from New York State Supreme Court and refiled two separate cases, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock “BlackRock California Case”). Pursuant to a settlement among the parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 6, 2018, and the BlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 11, 2019.

On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issue. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of New York’s Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG (see(see description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment. As of March 1,On October 27, 2021, both motionsDBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment have been briefedrelating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and are awaiting decision byDBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice. On April 26, 2023, the court.United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s summary judgment order.

On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 50 of the trusts at issue. On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for 1 of the 50 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 49 trusts at issue. Commerzbank’s second amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On January 29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. As of March 1, 2021, both motionsOn February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment have been briefed and are awaiting decision by the court.denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. Discovery is ongoing.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017, IKB voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims as to seven trusts. On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. Discovery is ongoing.

It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties under the related servicing agreement for this transaction.

In the last several years, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee or successor trustee for certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groups against U.S. Bank and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts. Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the trustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. 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, that it has meritorious defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously. However, U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent fifteen Delaware statutory trusts (the “DSTs”) that issued securities backed by student loans (the “Student Loans”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) in its capacities as indenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other institutions in their respective transaction capacities, with respect to the DSTs and the Student Loans. This lawsuit is captioned The National Collegiate Student Loan Master Trust I, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.) (the “NCMSLT Action”). The complaint, as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged that the DSTs have been harmed as a result of purported misconduct or omissions by the defendants concerning administration of the trusts and special servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have made assertions against U.S. Bank concerning special servicing that appear to be based on certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT Action. U.S. Bank believes that it has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer in good faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of the agreements governing the DSTs (the “Governing Agreements”), and accordingly that the claims against it in the NCMSLT Action are without merit. U.S. Bank has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case while other prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans are litigated. On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases. On January 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrial purposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans (the “Consolidated Action”). U.S. Bank and other parties to the Consolidated Action have briefed and argued motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Chancery Court Rule 12(c) regarding disputed issues of contractual interpretation at issue in one or more of the cases comprising the Consolidated Action, including the NCMSLT Action. The Court has not yet ruled on these motions or on U.S. Bank’s dismissal motion in the NCMSLT Action. U.S. Bank intends to continue to defend the NCMSLT Action vigorously.

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

The information regarding this Item has been previously provided in a prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity filed on May 29, 2015 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5).

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

The reports on assessments of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance with respect to the mortgage loans are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit O to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

The reports on assessments of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and related attestation reports on such assessments of compliance with respect to the Selig Office Portfolio Mortgage Loan and the 170 Broadway Mortgage Loan, which are being serviced and administered pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction, are attached hereto under Item 15 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Attached as Exhibit O to the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction incorporated by reference as Exhibit 4.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K is a chart identifying the entities participating in a servicing function for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction responsible for each applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d).

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached as Exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits,Exhibit and Financial Statement Schedules

(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

(1) Not applicable

(2) Not applicable

(3) See below

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.

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II
(Depositor)

Scott Epperson, Chief Executive Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Date: March 26, 202122, 2024