UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

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

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20162018

or

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

For the transition period from _____ to _____

Commission file number of the issuing entity: 333-195164-08

Central Index Key Number of the issuing entity: 0001638933

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-C28

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

Central Index Key Number of the depositor: 0000850779

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0000740906

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001592182

Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001541214

C-III Commercial Mortgage LLC

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

Central Index Key Number of the sponsor: 0001542105

Basis Real Estate Capital II, LLC

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

c/o Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

as Certificate Administrator

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD

(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)

21045

(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(704) 374-6161

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

Large accelerated filer        / /o                                                                                                        Accelerated filer                                      / /o

Non-accelerated filer          /X/⌧  (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)                            Smaller reporting company                     / /o

                                                                                                                                                        Emerging growth company                     o

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.                                             o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  / /o 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.  / /o Yes / /o 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.

The Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan, the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan and the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 6.4%, 5.2% and 2.1%, respectively, of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date, are each an asset of the issuing entity and are each part of a loan combination that includes the Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan, the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan or the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan which are assets of the issuing entity and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. These loan combinations, including the Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan, the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan and the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan, are 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. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is the master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  The responsibilities of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as primary servicer of each of these loan combinations with respect to the issuing entity, are subsumed within its responsibilities as master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  Thus, the servicer compliance statement provided by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, encompasses its roles as both master servicer and primary servicer with respect to these loan combinations.

The Exhibit Index describes exhibits provided by certain parties (in their capacities indicated on the Exhibit Index) with respect to the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, which constituted approximately 0.9% of the asset pool of the issuing entity as of its cut-off date.  The Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan is an asset of the issuing entity and is part of a loan combination that includes the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan and one other pari passu loan, which is not an asset of the issuing entity. The other pari passu portion of the loan combination was securitized in the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 transaction, Commission File Number 333-189017-08 (the “CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction”). This loan combination, including the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, is 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.  Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is the master servicer under the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction.  The responsibilities of Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as primary servicer of this loan combination with respect to the issuing entity, are subsumed within its responsibilities as master servicer under the pooling and servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29 Transaction.  Thus, the servicer compliance statement provided by Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as master servicer under such pooling and servicing agreement, encompasses its roles as both master servicer and primary servicer with respect to this loan combination.

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is the special servicer of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the primary servicer and special servicer of the Commerce Point I & II 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.

Wilmington Trust, National Association acts as trustee of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.  Pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the trustee is required to provide an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria solely with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB (regarding 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). However, during the reporting period, the trustee did not perform any servicing function with respect to the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.  The master servicer or the special servicer, to the extent required, performed the servicing function identified with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB, and each such party included Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB in the assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountant’s attestation report for the subject transaction.  As a result, this Annual Report on Form 10-K does not include an assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria of the trustee. One or more other servicers of the mortgage loans serviced under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement have delivered one or more assessments of compliance with respect to Item 1122(d)(2)(iii) of Regulation AB.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes assessments of compliance with applicable servicing criteria and accountants’ attestation reports from CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. and National Tax Search, LLC.  These entities were engaged by the master servicer ofunder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to remit tax payments received from the escrow accounts of borrowers to local taxing authorities, to report tax amounts due, to verify tax parcel information, and to verify non-escrow tax payments. These servicing functions are included within the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(4)(xi) and 1122(d)(4)(xii) of Regulation AB.  Therefore, under the principles-based definition of “servicer” set forth in Item 1101(j) of Regulation AB that looks to the functions that an entity performs, these vendors are “servicers” for the purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.  See Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, Section 301.01 (Item 1101(j)).

With respect to the pari passu loan combination that includes the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, (i) the report on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation report on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as trustee and as custodian of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, Citibank, N.A. as certificate administrator of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan and Situs Holdings, LLC as operating advisor of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, listed on the Exhibit Index are omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K as they are not required to be included on this Annual Report on Form 10-K per Instruction 3 to Item 1122 of Regulation AB because they are parties performing activities that address servicing criteria relating to 5% or less of the assets of the issuing entity; and (ii) the servicer compliance statement of Citibank, N.A. as certificate administrator of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, listed on the Exhibit Index is omitted from this Annual Report on Form 10-K as it is not required by Item 1123 of Regulation AB to be included on this Annual Report on Form 10-K because it is an unaffiliated party that is 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 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.

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

Omitted.

Item 14.  Principal Accounting Fees and Services.

Omitted.

ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE ITEMS FOR REGULATION AB

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.

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 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as certificate administrator and as custodian, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as trustee and custodian and Citibank, N.A. as certificate administrator.

OnSince June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors have filed a civil complaintcomplaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo Bank”), in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, which wasand 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 putative class action complaint in the United StatesU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bankN.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the “Federal Court Complaint”certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”). In December 2014, the plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court 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. trusts.  The Federal Court Complaintcomplaints against Wells Fargo Bank allegesalleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and assertsasserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includesincluded money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filedWells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue.  The settlement agreement is subject to court approval.  Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar allegations filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federal and other trustees instate court are not covered by the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases againstagreement.  With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are proceeding beforewithout merit and intends to contest the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the “State Court Complaint”). Motions to dismiss all of the actions are pending except for the recently filed State Court Complaint. Thereclaims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on the trusteeWells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo 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 any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest 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 RMBS trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivativean action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf ofalleging that DBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts, asserting claims for alleged violationsto enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the U.S. Trust Indenture Acttrusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as trusteesmortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts.  Plaintiffs subsequentlyDuring the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed their state court complaintthe case from New York State Supreme Court and filed a derivative and class action complaintrefiled two separate cases, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock California Case”).  Pursuant to a settlement among the parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on behalf ofDecember 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 benefitSouthern District of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,New York, in which substantially overlapped withthe plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issueissue.  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 statethird amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court action. The complaint alleges thatdismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral lossescovenant of U.S. $89.4 billion, butgood 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 complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.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 description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to dismiss,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 on January 19, 2016,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 partially granteddismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenturepooling and servicing agreements, plaintiffs assertas well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of contract, violationthe covenant of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty,good faith, and breach of dutyCommerzbank only includes these claims to avoid conflicts of interest.preserve any rights on appeal.  The second amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateralDBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, of U.S. $9.8 billion,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, 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 plaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.  On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action.  On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016,29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.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.

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 New York’sthe Streit Act, violation of the Trust Indenture Act,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 filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissingdismissed with prejudice all claims as to threeseven trusts.  As of January 17, 2017,March 1, 2019, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.  Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.

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 as trustee and custodian under the pooling andrelated servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29this transaction.

Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as certificate administrator of the CGCMT 2015-GC29 transaction.  In the ordinary course of business, Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions.  Certain of these Citibank as trustee-related matters are disclosed herein.

On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in 48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “Trust Indenture Act”), 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 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 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. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. This case is still pending asOn April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017.  Briefing on those motions was completed on August 4, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the clerk to close the one remaining trust at issue.case. On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs’ opening brief was filed on August 3, 2018. Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018.  Plaintiffs’ filed their reply on November 16, 2018.

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 (the “Streit Act”).  Citibank’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of April 15, 2016.  Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016.  Citibank’s motionOn June 27, 2017, the state court issued a decision, dismissing the Event of Default claims, mortgage-file-related claims, the fiduciary duty claims, and the conflict of interest claims.  The decision sustained certain breach of contract claims including the claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties, a claim related to dismissrobo-signing, and the amended complaint was fully briefed asimplied covenant of October 21, 2016. We await a decision.good faith claim.  Citibank appealed the lower court’s decision, and on January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the claims related to robo-signing and the implied covenant of good faith, but allowed plaintiffs’ claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties to proceed. 

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)(“FDIC”) as Receiver for a failed 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 jointly briefed a motion to dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A., entities that have also been sued by FDIC in their capacity as trustee, and whosethese cases are alsohave all been consolidated in front of Judge Carter. Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of March 22, 2016.  On September 30, 2016, the Court granted Citibank’sthe motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for reargument or relief from judgment from the Court’s dismissal order.  On October 25, 2016,July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the courtmotion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action.  He denied reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave for defendantsto amend the complaint by October 9, 2017.  The FDIC subsequently requested an extension of time to file an opposition brief.its amended complaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8, 2017. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 13, 2018.  On April 18, 2018, plaintiff filed its opposition. Defendants filed their oppositionjoint reply on November 15, 2016 and Plaintiff filed its reply brief on November 22, 2016. We await a decision from the Court on plaintiff’s motion.May 3, 2018.

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 certificate administrator under the pooling andrelated servicing agreement for the CGCMT 2015-GC29this CMBS transaction.

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 21, 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 Schedule III 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 Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan, which is 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).

The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank National Association discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:

Material Instance of Noncompliance

In certain instances, the Schedule AL Files (Item 1125 of Regulation AB) were not reported in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements, in conflict with Item 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 transaction agreements”.  The noncompliance consisted of omitted or inaccurately reported numbers due to the following: (1) the initial setup files contained information at the asset level, and Midland was required to manually compile the information to present it at the loan level as required by Schedule AL; and (2) certain reporting requirements required manual processing by Midland, including the use of various data computation formulas, quality control checks and analysis.

The identified instances did not involve the servicing of assets included in this securitization.

Steps Taken to Remedy the Material Instance of Noncompliance

Midland is currently remediating the Schedule AL reporting for the CMBS transactions found to be incorrect, and will be making improvements to its systems, processes and procedures to support its Schedule AL reporting obligations.

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, 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

4.1           Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2015, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed on July 1, 2015 under Commission File No. 333-195164-08 and incorporated by reference herein).

4.2           Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee (filed as Exhibit 99.5 to the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 21, 2015 under Commission File No. 333-195164-08 and incorporated by reference herein).

31            Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.