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

  NONE.

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

  NONE.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

  Yes ___ No X

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 X

Note - Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their obligations under those Sections.

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 X No ___

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

   Not applicable.

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

   Not applicable.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or 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.

 Large accelerated filer ___

Accelerated filer ___

Non-accelerated filer X (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company ___

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.

  Not applicable.

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.

  Not applicable.

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.

Not applicable.

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).

Not applicable.

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

  Yes ___ No X

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

  Not applicable.

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

  Not applicable.

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

  Not applicable.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

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

  Not applicable.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

Thepurpose of this Amendment No. 1 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 201927, 2023 (the “Original Form 10-K”), is to (i) file a revisedreplacement report on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities with respectand corresponding attestation report provided by Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, which replacement reports more specifically relate to Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC (replacingBerkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC’s primary servicing platform. Such revised documents replace the documentcorresponding documents previously filed as Exhibit 33.12Exhibits 33.8 and 34.8 to the Original Form 10-K) and (ii) replace the attestation report of NDNB Assurance LLP on Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC’s assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities with the attestation report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, dated October 18, 2019, on Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC’s assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria for asset-backed securities (replacing the document previously filed as Exhibit 34.12 to the Original Form 10-K).10-K. No other changes have been made to the Original Form 10‑K.10-K. This Amendment No. 1 does not reflect subsequent events occurring after the original filing date of the Original Form 10-K.

The MSBAM 2015-C21 mortgage pool includes the following mortgage loans, each of which is serviced pursuant to a separate pooling and servicing agreement (each, an “Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement”):

• the Discovery Business Center mortgage loan, which is serviced pursuant to the MSBAM 2014-C202015-C20 pooling and servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 4.2.

Except as set forth below, each of the parties to each pooling and servicing agreement listed in the Exhibit Index both (1) participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB and (2) constitutes a servicer that meets the criteria in Item 1108(a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Regulation AB for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB:

• The trustee under a pooling and servicing agreement has a nominal role with respect to the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement. The trustee’s only servicing function is the contingent obligation to make certain advances if the master servicer under such pooling and servicing agreement fails to do so, while all other servicing functions are performed by other parties. The trustee under each of the pooling and servicing agreements listed in the Exhibit Index has confirmed to the registrant that it has not made any such contingent advances during the reporting period, and consequently, each such trustee does not participate in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, nor does it perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• The certificate administrator under a pooling and servicing agreement performs various payment administration functions solely for the securitization governed by such pooling and servicing agreement and the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement and does not have any obligations with respect to any other transaction. Consequently, the certificate administrator under an Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement does not participate in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, nor does it perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• The operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement represents the interests of senior certificateholders in the transaction governed by such pooling and servicing agreement and is responsible for monitoring the performance of the special servicer under such pooling and servicing agreement and producing certain reports to certificateholders relating to the resolution of the mortgage pool securitized pursuant to such pooling and servicing agreement. The operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement does not have any obligations with respect to any other transaction and is solely obligated to perform loan reporting functions with respect to the securitization governed by such pooling and servicing agreement.  Consequently, the operating advisor under an Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement neither participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB nor performs the functions of a servicer for purposes of the definition of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB or for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB. In addition, while the operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement has certain reporting obligations in respect of the related mortgage pool, it has no obligation to collect or disburse funds in respect of the mortgage pool or to administer any of the underlying mortgage loans.  Consequently, the operating advisor under a pooling and servicing agreement participates in the servicing function for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, but is not responsible for the “management or collection of the pool assets or making allocations or distributions to holders of the asset-backed securities” within the meaning of “servicer” under Item 1101 of Regulation AB and does not perform the functions of a servicer for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

• Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association is the master servicer under the MSBAM 2015-C20 pooling and servicing agreement, pursuant to which the Discovery Business Center mortgage loan is serviced. Because Midland Loan Services is not the MSBAM 2015-C21 master servicer, is not affiliated with any sponsor and services only the Discovery Business Center mortgage loan, which constitutes more than 5% but less than 10% of the mortgage pool, Midland Loan Services, as MSBAM 2015-C20 master servicer constitutes a reporting “servicing function participant” for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction 3 to Item 1122, but does not constitute a reporting “servicer” for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction to Item 1123.

• Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC is the current special servicer under the MSBAM 2014-C202015-C20 pooling and servicing agreement. In July 2018, CWCapital Asset Management LLC was replaced as special servicer under the MSBAM 2014-C202015-C20 pooling and servicing agreement and was succeeded by Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC. The Discovery Business Center mortgage loan is serviced pursuant to the MSBAM 2015-C20 pooling and servicing agreement. Because Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC is not the MSBAM 2015-C21 special servicer, is not affiliated with any sponsor and services only the Discovery Business Center mortgage loan, which constitutes more than 5% but less than 10% of the mortgage pool, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as MSBAM 2015-C20 special servicer constitutes a reporting “servicing function participant” for purposes of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction 3 to Item 1122, but does not constitute a reporting “servicer” for purposes of Item 1123 of Regulation AB, as specified in the Instruction to Item 1123.

• Mount Street US (Georgia) LLP is the current special servicer under the MSBAM 2015-C21 pooling and servicing agreement. On August 16, 2021, LNR Partners, LLC and CWCapital Asset Management LLC were replaced as general special servicer and excluded mortgage loan special servicer, respectively, under the MSBAM 2015-C21 pooling and servicing agreement, and were succeeded by Mount Street US (Georgia) LLP. LNR Partners, LLC remains the special servicer under the MSBAM 2015-C21 pooling and servicing agreement solely with respect to the 555 11th Street NW mortgage loan.

In addition, each of the following parties engaged the services of certain servicing function participants and sub-servicers for the reporting period, as set forth below:

•KeyBank National Association, as master servicer, engaged the services of Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, as a sub-servicer in respect of the entire mortgage pool for the reporting period.

•KeyBank National Association, as master servicer, engaged the services of Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as a sub-servicer in respect of 10.26%11.64% of the mortgage pool and NorthMarq Capital, LLC, as a servicing function participant in respect of 5.83%6.25% of the pool for the reporting period.

•On November 1, 2021, pursuant to the second amended and restated servicing agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 99.7, Computershare Trust Company, National Association was engaged to perform all or virtually all of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association’s roles as certificate administrator, custodian and trustee, as applicable, under (i) the pooling and servicing agreement and (ii) each Outside Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

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

Not applicable.

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

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any enhancement or other support for the certificates 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 for the certificates as described under Item 1115 of Regulation AB.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB, Legal Proceedings.

The registrant knows of no legal proceeding pending against the sponsors, depositor, trustee, issuing entity, servicer contemplated by Item 1108(a)(3) of Regulation AB, originator contemplated by Item 1110(b) of Regulation AB, or other party contemplated by Item 1100(d)(1) of Regulation AB, or of which any property of the foregoing is the subject, that is material to security holders, other than as disclosed in the prospectus of the issuing entity filed in a 424(b)(5) filing dated February 26, 2015, and other than as follows:

Since June 18,In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited (Phoenix Light) and certain related entities filed a group of institutional investors have filed civil complaintscomplaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and later the U.S.United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (“Wells Fargo Bank”) in its capacity as trustee for certaina number of residential mortgage backedmortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”)(RMBS) trusts. The complaints againstComplaints raising similar allegations have been filed by Commerzbank AG in the Southern District of New York and by IKB International and IKB Deutsche Industriebank in New York state court. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo Bank, alleged that theN.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors, and assertedplaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee'strustee’s alleged failure to: (i)to 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 included money damagesIn July 2022, the district court dismissed Phoenix Light’s claims and certain of the claims asserted by Commerzbank AG, and subsequently entered judgment in an unspecified amount, reimbursementeach case in favor of expenses, and equitable relief. Wells Fargo Bank, has reached an agreement, in which it denies any wrongdoing,N.A. In August 2022, Phoenix Light and Commerzbank AG appealed the district court’s decision to resolve these claims on a classwide basisthe United States Court of Appeals for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. Separate lawsuits againstSecond Circuit. Wells Fargo Bank, making similar allegationsN.A. previously settled two class actions filed by certain other institutional investors concerning 57 RMBS trustsand an action filed by the National Credit Union Administration with similar allegations. In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed substantially similar lawsuits in New York federal and state court are not covered by the agreement. With respect to the foregoing litigations,alleging Wells Fargo Bank, believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intendsN.A., as trustee, failed to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcometake appropriate actions upon learning of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.defective mortgage loan documentation.

On February 23, 2016,From time to time, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, a certificateholderDelaware limited liability company (“CWCAM”), is a party to lawsuits and other legal proceedings as part of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, Series 2007-CIBC18 (the “CIBC18 Trust”) filed suitits duties as a special servicer (e.g., enforcement of loan obligations) and/or arising in the Supreme Courtordinary course of New York, County of New York, against KeyBank National Association and Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (collectively, the “CIBC18 Servicers”). The suit was filed derivatively on behalf of the CIBC18 Trust. The action was brought in connection with the CIBC18 Servicers’ determination of the fair value of a loan, secured by the Bryant Park Hotel in New York City, held by the CIBC18 Trust and sold to an assignee of the CIBC18 Trust’s directing certificateholder, pursuant to an exercise of the fair value optionbusiness. Other than as set forth in the poolingfollowing paragraphs, there are currently no legal proceedings pending, and servicing agreement governingno legal proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, against CWCAM or of which any of its property is the CIBC18 Trust. There can be no assurances assubject, that are material to the outcome of the action or the possible impact of the litigation on the CIBC18 Servicers. Both CIBC18 Servicers deny liability, believe that they performed their obligations in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement applicable to the CIBC18 Trust, and have contested the claims asserted against them, filing a motion to dismiss the case. On November 28, 2016, the motion to dismiss was granted. The plaintiff certificateholder filed an appeal, and the appeal is pending. In the first quarter of 2018, the case was fully dismissed and is no longer pending.certificateholders.

On December 17, 2015, U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee under five pooling and servicing agreements for (i) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C30, (ii) COBALT CMBS Commercial Trust 2007-C2, (iii) Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-C31, (iv) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-5 and (v) ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 2007-6 commenced a proceeding with the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota (the “State Court”) for a declaratory judgment as to the proper allocation of certain proceeds in the alleged amount of $560 million (“Disputed Proceeds”) received by CWCAM in connection with the sale of the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town property in New York, New York securing loans held by those trusts. CWCAM was the special servicer of such property. The petition requests the State Court to instruct the trustee, the trust beneficiaries, and any other interested parties as to the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute penalty interest and/or the amount of the Disputed Proceeds, if any, that constitute gain-on-sale proceeds, with respect to each trust. On February 24, 2016, CWCAM made a limited appearance with the State Court to file a motion to dismiss this proceeding based on lack of jurisdiction, mootness, standing and forum non conveniens. On July 19, 2016, the State Court denied CWCAM’s motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2016, the action was removed to federal court in Minnesota (“Federal Court”). On October 21, 2016, the Federal Court held a hearing on the motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY Court”), a motion to remand to state court and a motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2017, the Federal Court reserved the determination on the motion to hear CWCAM’s request for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to remand the matter to state court and granted the motion to transfer the proceeding to the SDNY Court. All fact discovery was completed in December 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15, 2019.  There can be no assurances as to possible impact on CWCAM of these rulings and the transfer to the SDNY Court.  Cross motions for judgment on the pleadings were filed but the SDNY Court was unable to decide the case based on the pleadings and the SDNY Court ordered discovery. All fact discovery was completed in December, 2018 and expert discovery was completed on March 15, 2019. The parties aresubmitted cross motions for summary judgment, and on March 19, 2020, the SDNY Court entered an opinion and order in which it granted summary judgment in CWCAM’s favor and held that CWCAM was entitled to the midstentire amount of discovery.  However,penalty interest and that CWCAM’s determination of Yield Maintenance was correct. In the 127-page opinion, the SDNY Court found for CWCAM believeson every issue presented by the trustee’s petition, namely, that it has performed its obligations under the related poolingfunds in dispute constitute penalty interest and servicing agreements in good faith,yield maintenance, not gain-on-sale proceeds, and that the Disputed Proceeds were properly allocated to CWCAM asamount of penalty interest and it intends to vigorously contest any claim that such Disputed Proceeds were improperly allocated as penalty interest.

On March 31, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding II LTD. (“RAIT Preferred Funding”) commenced a complaint (“RAIT Complaint”) with the Supreme Courtyield maintenance was correctly calculated. An appeal of the State of New York, County of New York (the “RAIT Court”), claiming it owns $18,500,000 ofSDNY Court’s decision was taken on April 29, 2020. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on June 21, 2021. On July 14, 2022, the Second Circuit entered a mortgage loan secured bydecision affirming in part and reversing in part the developmentSDNY Court’s decision and remanding to the SDNY Court for further proceedings. The Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY’s Court holding that Penalty Interest and Yield Maintenance are paid before Gain-On-Sale Proceeds. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings that portion of the One Congress Street PropertySDNY Court’s decision related to approximately $67.2 million in Boston, Massachusetts (the “Loan”) and seeking (a) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT Preferred Funding isinterest on advances. On January 13, 2023, the directing lender under a co-lender agreement dated March 28, 2007 and a pooling and servicing agreement dated March 1, 2007 (collectively, the “Operative Agreements”) and was the directing lender at the time of the improper modification of the Loan, (b) a declaratory judgment stating that RAIT Preferred Funding has the right to terminate the special servicer, (c) monetary damages for the value of the bonds and fees paid to CWCAM as the special servicer of the Loan and (d) other things.  On May 17, 2016, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) stating that the RAIT Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAIT Complaint are negated by affidavits and evidentiary materials submitted with the RAIT Complaint.  On June 14, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (“Opposition”) stating that the claims in the RAIT Complaint were properly stated.  On June 30, 2016, CWCAM filed a reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss and in response to the Opposition, stating that each of CWCAM’s arguments is supported by the express language of the agreements between the parties the documentary evidence and New York case law.  On September 30, 2016, RAIT Preferred Funding and CWCAM entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement (the “2016 Settlement”),settlement agreement, in which provides(among other things) they agreed to stipulate that the amount of interest on advances that accrued on or before June 3, 2014 is $27.5 million, and that CWCAM would pay that amount into escrow for a staydistribution to certificateholders upon the entry of an order by the Court approving the settlement. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the trusts, provided notice of the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation (the “Litigation Stay”) through August 25, 2017.  Pursuantsettlement to the terms of the 2016 Settlement, upon satisfaction ofall parties in interest via a term of the 2016 Settlement by August 25, 2017 (or such later date agreed tonotice program approved by the parties),Court. A hearing on the RAIT Preferred Funding litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice.  On May 19, 2017 the Borrower repaid the Loan in accordance with the terms of the notes and satisfied the condition to dismissal with prejudice.  RAIT has refused to dismiss the case andsettlement is claiming that the B Note should be paid in full.  CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the Operative Agreements in good faith, and that the action should be dismissed with prejudice.  On August 29, 2017, the RAIT Court granted leave to RAIT Preferred Funding to amend its complaint.  On September 20, 2017, RAIT Preferred Funding filed an Amended Complaint (the “RAIT Amended Complaint”), which omits its original claims, adds Wells Fargo Bank as a defendant, and seeks (a) specific performance requiring repayment of the $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note or, in the alternative, monetary damages, including the $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note, in an amount to be determined at trial, (b) monetary damages on any fees paid to CWCAM as special servicer or Wells Fargo Bank as master servicer in connection with the borrower’s repayment of the Loan, (c) a declaratory judgment that RAIT Preferred Funding is entitled to recover the full $18,500,000 principal amount of the B Note, (d) punitive damages against CWCAM, and (e) other things.  On October 11, 2017, CWCAM filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (“CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint”) stating that the RAIT Amended Complaint did not state a claim and the essential facts of the RAIT Amended Complaint are negated by the Operative Agreements and other admissible evidentiary materials.  On November 13, 2017, Wells Fargo Bank filed a motion to dismiss the RAIT Amended Complaint (the “Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint”) and joined the CWCAM Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.  On January 29, 2018, the court dismissed all claims butscheduled for breach of contract and discovery has commenced.  CWCAM filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on March 18, 2019.16, 2023.

On December 1, 2017, a complaint against CWCAM and others was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-9463 (the “Original Complaint”). The gravamen of the Original Complaint alleged breaches of a contract and fiduciary duties by CWCAM’s affiliate, CWCapital Investments LLC in its capacity as collateral manager for the collateralized debt obligation transaction involving CWCapital Cobalt Vr, Ltd. In total, there are 14 counts pled in the Original Complaint. Of those 14, 5 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. On May 23, 2018, the Original Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 28, 2018, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a substantially similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York styled as CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. v. CWCapital Investments LLC, et al., Index No. 653277/2018 (the “New Complaint”). The gravamen of the New Complaint is the same as the previous complaint filed in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York. In total there are 16 counts pled in the New Complaint. Of those 16 counts, 45 claims were asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, 1 count seeks a declaratory judgement that the plaintiff has the right to enforce the contracts in question and 1 count seeks an injunction requiring the defendants to recognize the plaintiff as the directing holder for the trusts in question. On January 11, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed with prejudice the declaratory judgment and injunction counts. The New Complaint and related summons werewas not served on the defendants until July 13, 2018 and July 16, 2018. The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by the court on July 31, 2018. On August 3, 2018, the defendants, including CWCAM, filed a motion to dismiss the New Complaint in its entirety. On August 20, 2019, the court entered an order granting defendants’ motion almost in its entirety, dismissing 11 of the 16 counts and partially dismissing 2 additional counts. Of the remaining counts, 2 are asserted against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On September 19, 2019, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd. filed a notice of appeal relating to the August 20, 2019 dismissal order and on September 26, 2019, filed an amended complaint against CWCI and CWCAM attempting to address deficiencies relating to certain of the claims dismissed by the August 20, 2019 order. CWCI and CWCAM filed its Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 28, 2019. The court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on January 22, 2020 and on October 23, 2020, the court granted the motion dismissing the amended claims. On November 30, 2020, CWCapital Cobalt Vr Ltd filed a notice of appeal relating to the October 23, 2020 dismissal order. On April 27, 2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal as to claims against CWCAM that were part of the August 20, 2019 dismissal, but reversed the dismissal of two counts for breach of the Collateral Management Agreement against CWCI. CWCI sought leave to file an appeal of the decision. The plaintiff also sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the claims against CWCAM. Both requests for leave were denied by the First Department. On May 15, 2020, CWCI and CWCAM filed a motion to renew its motion to dismiss as to 4 of the remaining counts (including the remaining two counts against CWCAM for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment), based on a decision entered by Judge Failla in a trust instruction proceeding in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York awarding summary judgment in favor of CWCAM. On September 7, 2021, the court denied the motion to renew. CWCI and CWCAM filed a notice of appeal, which has not been decided.they perfected by the filing of their opening brief on July 1, 2022. On November 15, 2022, the First Department affirmed the court’s denial of the motion to renew. On October 1, 2021, CWCI and CWCAM moved to reargue the denial of the motion to renew (or alternatively, the motion to dismiss) with respect to certain of Cobalt’s claims, including the remaining 2 claims against CWCAM, based on the First Department’s April 27, 2021 decision. On March 24, 2022, the court denied the relief sought in the motion to reargue. CWCI and CWCAM have appealed the court’s decision on the motion to reargue and filed their opening brief on July 11, 2022. The appeal was dismissed as being nonappealable on August 30, 2022. CWCAM believes that it has performed its obligations under the related pooling and servicing agreements in good faith and the remaining allegations in the New Complaint are without merit.  CWCAM intends to vigorously contest each of the claims.

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

The information regarding this Item has been disclosedprovided previously in an annual report on Form 10-K of the issuing entity or in the prospectus of the issuing entity filed in a 424(b)(5) filing dated February 26, 2015.

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

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

The 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 BankKeyBank National Association discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:

Material Instance of Noncompliance

In certain instances,KeyBank National Association (KeyBank) has identified 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.

The report on assessment of compliance with applicable servicing criteria furnished pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB by CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”) discloses that afollowing material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:with servicing criteria 1122(d)(4)(ix) during the calendar year ended December 31, 2022, with respect to the Platform. The material instance of noncompliance does not relate to KeyBank’s performance under any pooling and servicing agreement applicable to the securitization transaction that is the subject of this Form 10-K.

1) Servicing Criteria impacted

1122(d)(4)(ix) –Adjustments to interest rates or rates of return for pool assets with variable rates are computed based on the related pool asset documents.

2) Material Instance of Noncompliance:Noncompliance with Servicing Criteria

1122(d)(2)(vii): “Reconciliations are prepared onDuring compliance testing, it was discovered, that not all FlexARM loan mortgagors were offered loan rates within 45-60 days before the rate change date, as required per the related pool asset documents. Per the Note, if the holder fails to offer a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts, including custodial accounts and related bank clearing accounts. These reconciliations: (A) are mathematically accurate; (B) are preparedloan rate within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date, or such other number of days specified in the transaction agreements; (C) are reviewed and approved by someone other than the person who prepared the reconciling items; and (D) contain explanations for reconciling items. These reconciling items are resolved within 90 calendar45-60 days of their original identification, or such other numberany change date a margin of days specified2.25% is to be used. Given the notification was not made to the borrowers, a 3% margin was incorrectly applied. The noncompliance in Item 1122 (d)(4)(ix) is related to a servicing portfolio which is wholly owned by the transaction agreements.”investor and is not held in a publicly traded security.

3) Remediation

The instancefollowing remediation procedures have been initiated by KeyBank: (i) the impacted mortgage loans are currently in the process of material noncompliance, forbeing identified, (ii) investor contact has been initiated, (iii) corrective actions are being considered and will be tracked and monitored by senior management, (iv) procedures will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, to include new tracking and action steps to prevent this situation from recurring in the reporting period included a failure to complete the required bank reconciliations within 30 calendar days after the bank statement cutoff date.  In five of the twelve months relatedfuture, and (v) training will be provided to the reporting period, the required reconciliations were not completed within the 30 calendar days requirement as follows:

February 2018: bank reconciliations were prepared on June 22, 2018

March 2018: bank reconciliations were prepared on May 1, 2018

September 2018: bank reconciliations were prepared on November 6, 2018

November 2018: bank reconciliations were prepared on February 19, 2019

December 2018: bank reconciliations were prepared on February 6, 2019

The identified instances did involve the servicing of assets included in this securitization.

Steps Takenrelevant staff members to Remedy the Material Instance of Noncompliance

In response to the lack of adherence to company policy and procedures, CWCAM’s Compliance Committee reviewed the reasons for noncompliance and added two additional procedures to supplement its existing procedures:

1) the accounting department has added the completion of bank account reconciliations within 30 calendar days to its monthly closing checklist, which is reviewed and signed off byprevent a CWCAM officer; and

2) the Chief Financial Officer has set up a monthly electronic reminder requiring that the completed bank reconciliations be forwarded to the CFO for an additional layer of review.recurrence.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB, Servicer Compliance Statement.

The servicer compliance statements are attached hereto under Item 15.

The servicer compliance statement furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB by Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc. discloses that a material instance of noncompliance occurred, as described below:

Trimont self-identified certain instances in which reconciliations were not completed timely and management conducted remediation of these situations, including providing additional resourcing to the reconciliation team during the Reporting Period. Reconciliations are now being performed timely across the portfolio.

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a) Exhibits.

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

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

33.1233.8  Rialto Capital Advisers,Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, as SpecialPrimary Servicer under the MSBAM 2015-C20 securitization, pursuant to which the following mortgage loans were serviced by such party: Discovery Business Center (from 7/5/18 to 12/31/18)

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

34.1234.8  Rialto Capital Advisers,Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC, as SpecialPrimary Servicer under the MSBAM 2015-C20 securitization, pursuant to which the following mortgage loans were serviced by such party: Discovery Business Center (from 7/5/18 to 12/31/18)

(b) See (a) 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.

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

(Depositor)