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

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 custodian:as custodian, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as trustee 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., 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 civil 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 “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 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 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 toto: (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, purportedly caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers, 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 (collectively,Wells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a classwide basis for the “Additional Complaints”) alleging similar causes of action have been filed271 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 state court are not covered by the agreement.  With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.

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 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 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 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 description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

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.

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.  As of March 1, 2019, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.

It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the same courtforegoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties under the related servicing agreement for this 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 RMBSa group of investors in these48 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.  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 transactions,three trusts. Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts. On 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 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”).  Following oral argument on Citibank’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016.  On 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 robo-signing, and the implied covenant of 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”) 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 these cases have all been consolidated beforein front of Judge Carter.  On September 30, 2016, the same judge.Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On January 19,October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for reargument or relief from judgment from the Court’s dismissal order.  On July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the motion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action.  He denied reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave to amend the complaint by October 9, 2017.  The FDIC subsequently requested 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 Plaintiffsextension of time to file its amended complaints if they so chose, and threecomplaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaints have been filed. 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 joint reply on May 3, 2018.

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 BankCitibank denies liability and believes that it has performedcontinues 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 obligationsduties 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.related servicing agreement for this 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 CGMTCGCMT 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 CGMTCGCMT 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 CGMTCGCMT 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.

33            Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.

34            Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.

35            Servicer compliance statements.

35.1         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer

35.2         Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer

35.3         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator

35.4         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer of the Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.1)

35.5         Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer of the Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.6         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator of the Eastgate One Phases I-VII & XII Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.3)

35.7         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer of the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.1)

35.8         Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer of the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.9         Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator of the Eastgate Two Phases VIII-X Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.3)

35.10       Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer of the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.1)

35.11       Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer of the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.12       Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator of the Brickyard Square Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.3)

35.13       Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.14       Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan (see Exhibit 35.2)

35.15       Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator of the Commerce Point I & II Mortgage Loan (Omitted. See Explanatory Notes.)

99.1         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (filed as Exhibit 99.1 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)

99.2         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.2 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)herein)

99.3         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and C-III Commercial Mortgage LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.3 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)

99.4         Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Basis Real Estate Capital II, LLC and Basis Investment Group LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.4 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)

(b)   The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed above and in the Exhibit Index that immediately follows the signature page hereof.above.

(c)    Not Applicable.

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.

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

(Depositor)

Anthony Sfarra, President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Date: March 20, 2019

Date: April 6, 2016 

Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.

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.

33 Reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities. 

34 Attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities.

35 Servicer compliance statements.

99.1 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (filed as Exhibit 99.1 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)

99.2 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.2 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)

99.3 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, between Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. and C-III Commercial Mortgage LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.3 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)

99.4 Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 13, 2015, among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Basis Real Estate Capital II, LLC and Basis Investment Group LLC (filed as Exhibit 99.4 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)