UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20172023

or

For the transition period fromto

333-189017-07

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

0001629716

(Central Index Key Number of issuing entity)

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC27

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

333-189017

(Commission File Number of depositor)

0001258361

(Central Index Key Number of depositor)

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp.

(Central Index Key Number: 0001541001)

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company

(Central Index Key Number: 0001541502)

LMF Commercial, LLC (f/k/a Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLCLLC)

(Central Index Key Number: 0001592182)

Redwood Commercial Mortgage Corporation

(Central Index Key Number: 0001567746)

RAIT Funding, LLC

(Central Index Key Number: 0001587045)

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

c/o Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich Street 14^thTrading, 4th Floor

New York, New York 10013

(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)

(212)816-5614

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

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

Securities registered pursuant to sectionSection 12(g) of the Act: None.

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

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 RegulationS-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Not Applicable

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of RegulationS-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form10-K or any amendment to this Form10-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. o

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). o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act). ☐ Yes ☒ No

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

Not Applicable

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

Not Applicable

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

Not Applicable

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form10-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).

SeeNot Applicable

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1 Effective as of July 5, 2018, the controlling class representative under the CGCMT 2015-GC27 PSA removed Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as special servicer under the CGCMT 2015-GC27 PSA and appointed Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as the replacement special servicer under the CGCMT 2015-GC27 PSA (excluding with respect to the Boca Hamptons Plaza Portfolio mortgage loan and the related companion loan, for which Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC was appointed as special servicer prior to July 5, 2018), as disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the registrant on July 5, 2018 under Commission File No. 333-189017-07. The Boca Hamptons Plaza Portfolio mortgage loan, which represented approximately 0.7% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one pari passu companion loan that is held outside the issuing entity. The Boca Hamptons Plaza Portfolio mortgage loan and the related companion loan (together, the “Boca Hamptons Plaza Loan Combination”) are serviced pursuant to the CGCMT 2015-GC27 PSA. On July 1, 2015, the holder of the related companion loan removed Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as the special servicer with respect to the Boca Hamptons Plaza Loan Combination, and appointed Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as the successor special servicer with respect to the Boca Hamptons Plaza Loan Combination, as disclosed in the current report on Form 8-K with respect to the issuing entity filed on July 1, 2015 under Commission File No. 333-189017-07.

2 The Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan, which represented approximately 4.2% of the initial pool balance of the issuing entity, is part of a loan combination comprised of the subject mortgage loan included in the issuing entity and one pari passu companion loan that is held outside the issuing entity. The Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan and the related companion loan is serviced pursuant to the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA.

3 Pursuant to Instruction 3 to Item 15.1122 of Regulation AB, the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of (i) LNR Partners, LLC, as general special servicer for the Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA, (ii) U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee and custodian for the Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA and (iii) Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor for the Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA, are not included in this report on Form 10-K because each of LNR Partners, LLC, U.S. Bank National Association and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC performed activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to 5% or less of the pool assets of the issuing entity. This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the report on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria and attestation report on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria of U.S. Bank National Association, as certificate administrator under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA, because the certificate administrator under such pooling and servicing agreement does not perform any activities that address the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.

4 This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statement of LNR Partners, LLC, as general special servicer for the Twin Cities Premium Outlets mortgage loan under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA, because LNR Partners, LLC is an unaffiliated party that services less than 10% of the pool assets of the issuing entity, and therefore is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB. This annual report on Form 10-K does not include the servicer compliance statement of U.S. Bank National Association, as certificate administrator under the GSMS 2014-GC26 PSA, because the certificate administrator under such pooling and servicing agreement is not a “servicer” that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB with respect to the issuing entity.

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.[Reserved]

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.

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

Not Applicable.

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 REQUIRED BY GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2)

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB

With respect to the pool assets for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC27, there are no significant obligors within the meaning of Item 1101(k) of Regulation AB.

Item 1114(b)(2) and Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement, uses any derivative instruments or other support for the certificates within this transaction.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB

Disclosure from Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator:

Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) is acting as the Certificate Administrator of this commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) transaction. In the ordinary course of business, Citibank is involved in a number of legal proceedings, including in connection with its role as trustee of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“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 U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended (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 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 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 in front of Judge Carter. On September 30, 2016, the court granted Citibank’s 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 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 extension of time to file its amended complaint, which was granted. The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8, 2017.

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 and servicing agreement for this CMBS transaction.

Disclosure from Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee:

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 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 (the “Trust Indenture Act”), 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 on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted 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 indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the Trust Indenture Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to

avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral 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’(the “conflict-of-interestBlackRock 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 Trust Indenture Act, 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 bankruptcySDNY Case”) 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 allegedpre-event of default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The parties are currently briefing the motion. Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, theBlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCAother in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect(the “BlackRock California Case”). Pursuant 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 ofa settlement among the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bringparties, 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,BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 19, 2016, DBNTC6, 2018, and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. OnBlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The parties are currently briefing the motion. Discovery is ongoing.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;Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of the New York’s Streit Act (the “Streit Act”);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’ Trust IndentureTIA 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. Discovery is ongoing.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 October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’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 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 one1 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 Trust Indenture Act;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 Trust Indenture ActTIA 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 February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and 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 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 ofOn January 17, 2017,27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss has been briefedwith respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and is awaitingSection 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, byon June 15, 2023, the court.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 20, 2017,2, 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 fourseven additional trusts. Certain limited discoveryOn 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 permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.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 as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreementrelated servicing agreement for this transaction.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB

Provided previously in (i) the prospectus supplement of the Registrant relating to the issuing entity and filed on February 9, 2015 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.amended and (ii) the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the registrant on July 5, 2018 under Commission File No. 333-189017-07.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB

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

Item 1123 of Regulation AB

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

SIGNATURES

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.

Date: March 30, 201829, 2024