UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-D

ASSET-BACKED ISSUER

DISTRIBUTION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the monthly distribution period from:

May 12, 2018 to June 12, 2018

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-189017-08

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001636708

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29

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

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-189017

Central Index Key Number of depositor: 0001258361

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)

Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC

(Central Index Key Number: 0001592182)

FCRE REL, LLC

(Central Index Key Number: 0001636352)

(Exact names of sponsors as specified in their respective charters)

Richard Simpson (212) 816-5343

(Name and telephone number, including area code, of the person to contact in connection with this filing)

New York

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the issuing entity)

47-3737451

47-3720890

47-6961976

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

c/o Citibank, N.A. 388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor New York, New York	10013
(Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)	(Zip Code)

(212) 816-5693

(Telephone number, including area code)

Title of class	Registered/reporting pursuant to (check one)			Name of exchange (If Section 12(b))
	Section 12(b)	Section 12(g)	Section 15(d)
A-1	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
A-2	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
A-3	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
A-4	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
A-AB	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
X-A	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
X-B	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
A-S	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
B	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
PEZ	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable
C	☐	☐	☒	Not Applicable

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  ☐

PART I – DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

Item 1. Distribution and Pool Performance Information.

On June 12, 2018, a distribution was made to holders of the certificates issued by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29.

The distribution report is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 10-D.

No assets securitized by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (the “Depositor”) and held by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of the representations and warranties contained in the underlying transaction documents during the monthly distribution period covered by this distribution report on Form 10-D.

The Depositor most recently filed a Form ABS-15G under Rule 15Ga-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Rule 15Ga-1”) on February 14, 2018. The CIK number of the Depositor is 0001258361.

Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. (“CGMRC”), one of the sponsors, most recently filed a Form ABS-15G under Rule 15Ga-1 on February 14, 2018. The CIK number of CGMRC is 0001541001.

Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (“GSMC”), one of the sponsors, most recently filed a Form ABS-15G under Rule 15Ga-1 on May 11, 2018. The CIK number of GSMC is 0001541502.

Rialto Mortgage Finance, LLC (“Rialto”), one of the sponsors, most recently filed a Form ABS-15G under Rule 15Ga-1 on February 2, 2018. The CIK number of Rialto is 0001592182.

FCRE REL, LLC (“FCRE”), one of the sponsors, most recently filed a Form ABS-15G under Rule 15Ga-1 on February 2, 2016. The CIK number of FCRE is 0001636352.

Item 1A. Asset-Level Information.

Not applicable

Item 1B. Asset Representations Reviewer and Investor Communication.

Not applicable

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 2. Legal Proceedings.

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 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 is due August 3, 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 in front of Judge Carter. On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motion to dismiss 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. 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 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 derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act 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 trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint 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’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the 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 bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-event of default duty to terminate servicers. 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. As of May 18, 2018, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. On April 6, 2018, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Sealink Funding Limited and ordered that Sealink’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. On April 24, 2018, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Kore Advisors, LP (“Kore”) and ordered that Kore’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 30, 2018, the court denied that motion. On June 8, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the denial of that motion. Discovery is ongoing.

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 Trust Indenture Act; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of New York’s Streit Act (the “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’ Trust Indenture 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 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 one 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; 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 Act 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. 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, 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, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.

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

Item 3. Sales of Securities and Use of Proceeds.

None

Item 4. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.

None

Item 5. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

None

Item 6. Significant Obligors of Pool Assets.

The portfolio of properties securing the Selig Office Portfolio mortgage loan constitutes a significant obligor within the meaning of Item 1101(k)(2) of Regulation AB and as disclosed in the Prospectus Supplement for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29 filed on April 15, 2015. With respect to the portfolio of properties securing the Selig Office Portfolio mortgage loan, the most recent unaudited net operating income was $6,995,256 from January 01, 2018 through March 31, 2018.

Item 7. Change in Sponsor Interest in Securities.

None

Item 8. Significant Enhancement Provider Information.

None

Item 9. Other Information.

None

Item 10. Exhibits.

(a) The following is a list of documents filed as part of this Form 10-D:

(99.1): Monthly report distributed to holders of the certificates issued by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29, relating to the June 12, 2018 distribution.

(b) The exhibits required to be filed by the Registrant pursuant to this Form 10-D are listed above and in the Exhibit Index that immediately precedes the signature page hereof.

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number	Description
Exhibit 99.1	Monthly report distributed to holders of the certificates issued by Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-GC29, relating to the June 12, 2018 distribution.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements 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.

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

(Depositor)

/s/ Richard Simpson

Richard Simpson, President

Date: June 26, 2018