ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
| ☑ | Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20192022 or
| ☐ | Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-166301-05
Central Index Key of issuing entity: 0001536720
SLM STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2012-1
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
Commission File Number of depositor: 333-166301
Central Index Key of depositor: 0000949114
NAVIENT FUNDING, LLC
(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)
Central Index Key of sponsor: 0001601725
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC
(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
| | 04-3480392 |
| | 04-3480392 |
| DELAWARE |
| 04-3480392 04-3480392 54-1843973 |
| (State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation) |
| (I.R.S. Employer Identification Nos.) |
c/o Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
60 Wall Street, 27th Floor
Mailstop NYC 60-2720
New York, New York 10005
(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)
(703) 984-6890
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code
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 registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☑
Indicate by check mark if registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the 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 every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulations S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☑ No ☐
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:
| Large accelerated filer | ☐ | | Accelerated filer | ☐ |
| Non-accelerated filer | ☑ | | 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. ☐
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. ☐
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). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☑
State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
Not applicable.
PART I
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
Item 1B.1B. | Unresolved Staff Comments |
Not Applicable.
| Item 4. | Mine Safety Disclosures. |
Not Applicable.
The following information is substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB. Significant Obligor Financial Information
No single obligor represents more than 10% of the pool assets held by the Issuing Entity.
Items 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB. Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides external credit enhancement or other support with respect to payments on the notes issued by the Issuing Entity.
Items 1115(b) of Regulation AB. Credit Derivatives Instruments
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides derivative instruments with respect to payments on the notes issued by the Issuing Entity.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB. Legal Proceedings
Other than as stated in the following paragraphs, no legal proceedings are pending against the Issuing Entity, Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), as the Sponsor, the Servicer and the Administrator, Navient Funding, LLC, as the Depositor (the “Depositor”) and registrant under Registration Statement Number 333-166301333-190926 (the “Registrant”) or to the Registrant’s knowledge, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as the Indenture Trustee that are or would be material to the holders of the notes issued by the Issuing Entity, nor does the Registrant know of any such proceeding contemplated by any governmental authorities.
The following three paragraphs are disclosure received from Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), the servicer for this transaction.
In January 2017, the CFPB and the Offices of the Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient Corporation (“Navient”) and severalhas been named as defendant in a number of its subsidiaries (including Navient Solutions) as defendants alleging violations of certain federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and various state consumer protection laws. In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a civilputative class action against Navient and Navient Solutions, containing similar alleged violations of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Additionally, in 2018 the Attorneys General for the States of California and Mississippi initiated similar actions against Navient and certain subsidiariescases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws. We refer tolaws including the Illinois, Washington, Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi Attorneys General collectively asTelephone Consumer Protection Act, the “State Attorneys General.” In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and the State Attorneys General. As Navient has previously stated, we believe the suits improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new, unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively only against one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have denied these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in each of these cases.
During the first quarter of 2016, Navient, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings (including certain of the initial purchasers) were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. Discovery is on-going. Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities ExchangeConsumer Financial Protection Act of 1934, as amended2010 (the “Exchange Act”“CFPA”). After, the cases were consolidated byFair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), the CourtFair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), in February 2018adversarial proceedings under the caption (in re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation), the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018United States Bankruptcy Code, and Navient Corporation filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018. In December 2019, the Court denied Navient’s motion to dismiss and discovery is ongoing. Navient continues to deny the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
various state consumer protection laws. At this point in time, Navient is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that these legal proceedings may have on Navient’sits consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operation or cash flows. As a result, it is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection with these matters and reserves have not been established. It is possible that an adverse ruling or rulings may have a material adverse impact on Navient, Navient Solutions and/or their affiliates or on the financial ability of the depositor, the servicer or a seller to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breach of representation, warranty or covenant.
In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) and the Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient and several of its subsidiaries (including Navient Solutions) as defendants alleging violations of certain federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, the FCRA, the FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws. The Attorneys General for the States of Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, and New Jersey also initiated actions against Navient and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based on similar alleged acts or failures to act. In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and the State Attorneys General. In January 2022, Navient entered into a series of Consent Judgment and Orders (the “Agreements”) with 40 State Attorneys General to resolve all matters in dispute related to the State Attorneys General cases as well as the related investigations, subpoenas, civil investigative demands and inquiries from various other state regulators. These Agreements do not resolve the litigation involving Navient and the CFPB.
Navient believes the allegations in the CFPB suit are false and that they improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new, previously unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively against only one servicer. Navient therefore has denied these allegations and are vigorously defending against the allegations in that case. At this point in time, it is reasonably possible that a loss contingency exists; however, Navient is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that an adverse ruling in the CFPB case may have on Navient’s consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operation or cash flows. As a result, it is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection with this matter and reserves have not been established. It is also possible that an adverse ruling or rulings on claims made by the CFPB and State Attorneys General in their complaints against Navient or its affiliates may have a material adverse effectimpact on Navient, Navient Solutions and/or their affiliates or on the financial ability of the depositor, the servicer or a seller to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breach of representation, warranty or covenant. It is possible that an adverse ruling or rulings may have a material adverse impact on the trust student loans. In either case, the payments on your notes may be adversely affected.
The following sixfour paragraphs are disclosure received from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage backedmortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.
On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten RMBS trusts against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”), breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, the court dismissed plaintiff’s TIA claim and its derivative theory. On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class action complaint against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in the other, ongoing Royal Park litigation. Pursuant to a settlement between the parties, both cases were dismissed on June 10, 2019.
On November 7, 2014, the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”), as an investor in 121 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against DBNTC as trustee of those trusts, alleging violations of the TIA and the New York Streit Act for DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties. On March 5, 2015, NCUA amended its complaint to assert claims as an investor in 97 of the 121 RMBS trusts that were the subject of its first complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of the TIA and Streit Act, as well as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith. NCUA’s complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $17.2 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On May 1, 2015, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 31, 2018, the court issued an order that, among other things, denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to its renewal. On August 31, 2018, NCUA filed a letter informing the court that it intends to: (i) drop all of its claims as to 60 of the 97 trusts at issue; (ii) drop its claims as to certain, but not all, certificates for 3 additional trusts; and (iii) move for leave to file an amended complaint bringing claims as to the remaining 37 trusts at issue. On October 5, 2018, NCUA filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that asserts claims as to only 37 of the 97 trusts that were originally at issue, and adds new claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in NCUA’s action and in other actions brought by investors against DBNTC for alleged breaches of its duties as an RMBS trustee. On November 5, 2018, DBNTC filed a motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. On October 15, 2019, the court: (i) granted in part NCUA’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; and (ii) granted DBNTC’s motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. The court permitted NCUA to file a second amended complaint asserting claims for: (i) breach of contract arising out of DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties; and (ii) declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses. The court denied NCUA’s request to assert additional claims for: (i) negligence and gross negligence; and (ii) breach of fiduciary duty. On October 21, 2019, NCUA filed a second amended complaint. On November 15, 2019, DBNTC filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On June 11, 2021, NCUA filed a third amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the second amended complaint. On July 1, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On October 5, 2021, NCUA filed a fourth amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the third amended complaint. On October 25, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the fourth amended complaint. On February 4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation in which NCUA agreed to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims as to 19 trusts. On February 28, 2022, both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment, which have been fully briefed. Discovery is ongoing.
On December 23, 2014, certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited that held RMBS certificates issued by 21 RMBS trusts filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against DBNTC as trustee of the trusts, asserting claims for violation of the TIA and the Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. On April 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating to an additional 34 trusts (for a total of 55 trusts) and amended their complaint for a second time on July 15, 2015 to include additional allegations and to drop their claim for negligent misrepresentation. In that complaint, plaintiffs alleged damages of over U.S. $527 million. On February 2, 2016, the court entered a stipulation signed by the parties to dismiss with prejudice claims relating to four of the 55 trusts, leaving 51 trusts at issue. DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed the majority of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims to proceed. The court denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent that negligence claims were duplicative of breach of contract claims but denied the motion to dismiss to the extent plaintiffs alleged DBNTC violated extra-contractual duties. In addition, the court dismissed breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The court also denied the motion to dismiss claims for alleged violations of Sections 315(b) and 315(c) of the TIA, but dismissed claims under 316(b). Finally, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ Streit Act claim. Following the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss, 46 trusts remained at issue. On May 13, 2016, DBNTC filed an answer to the amended complaint. On December 20, 2016, the court ordered the parties’ stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims relating to three trusts, leaving 43 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 TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that the court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, plaintiffs, jointly with Commerzbank AG
(see(see description of
Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.
As of March 8, 2019, both motionsOn October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment
have been briefedrelating to plaintiffs’ standing. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and
are awaiting decision byDBTCA’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 March 10, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
court. Discovery is ongoing.United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with respect to the court’s orders on the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.
On March 24,December 30, 2015, the WesternIKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and Southern Life Insurance Company and five related entitiesIKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “Western & Southern”“IKB”), as investorsan investor in 1837 RMBS trusts, filed a complaintsummons with notice in the Supreme Court of Common Pleas, Hamiltonthe State of New York, New York County, Ohio, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustee for 12trustees of those trusts,the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for violation of the TIA and the Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the covenantStreit Act, violation of good faiththe TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and fair dealing, based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trusteeviolation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for the trusts.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 based upon lackdismiss. On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens; a motiondiscontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to stay the case pending the resolution of similar actions in New York against DBNTC; and a motion to sever the claims against DBNTC from those against its co-defendant. On November 5, 2015, the court denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case but granted DBNTC’s motion to sever. After DBNTC’s first motion to dismiss was decided, DBNTC filed another motion to dismiss, this time for failure to state a claim.three trusts. On June 24, 2016,20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed the majority of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims to proceed. The court granted the motion to dismiss most negligence claims as duplicative breach of contract claims, but denied the motion to dismiss negligence/breach of fiduciary duty claims insofar as those claims relate to alleged conflicts of interest. In addition, the court dismissed claims alleging: (a) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (b) negligent misrepresentation, (c) breach of the TIA, (d) any breach of alleged duties relating to the misconduct of IndyMac Bank fsb, the sponsor of 9 of the 12 trusts at issue, (e) any breaches relating to one resecuritization trust at issue, as to which the court found plaintiffs had alleged no breaches by DBNTC and (f) breach of the Streit Act. On July 25, 2016, DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On October 14, 2016, Western & Southern filed an amended complaint, asserting claims for violation of the TIA and the Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the amended complaint, Western & Southern alleged that it purchased certificates of the trusts with a face value of more than U.S.$168 million and that the trusts at issue suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S.$ 1 billion, but the amended complaint did not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On November 18, 2016, DBNTC filed an answer to the amended complaint. On September 28, 2017, Western & Southern voluntarily dismissed its case without prejudice.
On December 23, 2015, Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”), as an investor in 50 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against DBNTC as trustee of the trusts, asserting claims for violations of the TIA and New York’s Streit Act, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of the covenant of good faith, based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. Commerzbank alleges that DBNTC caused it 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 April 29, 2016, Commerzbank filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint asserts the same claims as did the original complaint, and, like the original complaint, alleges that DBNTC caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On May 27, 2016, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 10, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC’sDBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Commerzbank’s claimIKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and claim under the Streit Act, dismissing those claims with prejudice. The court also granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Commerzbank’s claim under the TIA as to the 46 trusts at issue governed by pooling and servicing agreements, dismissing that claim with prejudice as to those 46 trusts. The court also granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice, with respect to Commerzbank’scontract, breach of contract claim as to ten trusts whose governing agreements limit the right to file suit under the governing agreements to certain specified parties, including the registered holder of a certificate issued by the trust. The court held that, although Commerzbank has not received authorization from the registered holderfiduciary duty, and violation of the certificates at issue to file suit, it may still obtain that authorization from the registered holder.TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. Therefore, with the exception of the claims relating to the ten trusts for which Commerzbank has not received authorization to file suit, Commerzbank’sIKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and negligence will proceed. Commerzbank’s claim underviolation of the TIA as to the four trusts governed by agreements other than pooling and servicing agreements will also proceed. On May 1, 2017, DBNTC filed an answer to the amended complaint. On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for 1 of the 50 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 49 trusts at issue. Commerzbank’s second amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that the court previously dismissed its TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbankfiled 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 suffer “hundredsdismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of millionscross appeal with respect to other aspects of dollarsthat order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in losses,” butpart and reversed in part the complaint does not includecourt’s order on the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2022, IKB filed a demandmotion for money damages inreargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as to certain aspects of the First Department’s decision. On September 30, 2022, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a sum certain.motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as to other aspects of that decision. On January 29, 2018,November 10, 2022, the First Department granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied IKB’s motion for reargument, and denied as moot IKB’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. On June 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 second amended complaint. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCAOctober 28, 2021, the parties filed a motion for summary judgment. Also onstipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with29, 2021, the Phoenix Light plaintiffs,parties filed a motion for partial summary judgment. As of March 8, 2019, both motions for summary judgment have been briefed and are awaiting decision bystipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the court.parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue (including all claims as to 5 trusts), leaving 17 trusts at issue. Discovery is ongoing.
It is DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s belief that they have no pending legal proceedings, (including,including, based on DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s current evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the immediately preceding fivethree paragraphs that would materially affect their ability to perform their duties as trusteeTrustee under the Indenture for this transaction.
PART II
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:
| Item 5. | Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities |
Item 6. | Selected Financial Data |
| Item 7. | Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation |
Item 7A.7A. | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk |
| Item 8. | Financial Statements and Supplementary Data |
| Item 9. | Changes in and Disagreements withWith Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure |
Item 9A.9A. | Controls and Procedures |
Item 9B.9B. | Other Information |
Nothing to report.
| Item 9C. | Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections. |
Not applicable.
PART III
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
| Item 10. | Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance |
| Item 11. | Executive Compensation |
| Item 12. | Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters |
| Item 13. | Certain Relationships, Related Transactions, and Director Independence |
| Item 14. | Principal AccountingAccountant Fees and Services |
The following information is substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1119 of Regulation AB. Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
Pursuant to the Instruction to Item 1119 of Regulation AB, information required by Item 1119 has been omitted from this Report because substantially the same information related to affiliates of the Issuing Entity and certain relationships and related transactions is provided in the section titled “The Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator” of the base prospectus, previously filed with the SEC on January 13, 2012 pursuant to Securities Act Rule 424, file number 333-166301.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria
Navient Solutions, LLC, as the Servicer, Navient Solutions, LLC, as the Administrator and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as the Indenture Trustee (collectively, the “Servicing Parties”) have each been identified by the Depositor as parties participating in the servicing function with respect to the asset pool held by the Issuing Entity. Each of the Servicing Parties has completed a report on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it (each a “Servicing Report”), which Servicing Reports are attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. Each of the Servicing Parties have provided an attestation report (each an “Attestation Report”) by one or more public accounting firms, which reports are also attached as exhibits to this Report. None of the Servicing Reports or Attestation Reports has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria as applicable to the respective Servicing Party. There have been no material instances of noncompliance with the servicing criteria for the period of this Report.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement
A Servicer Compliance Statement for each of Navient Solutions, LLC, as Servicer, and Navient Solutions, LLC, as Administrator, is included as an exhibit to this Report.
PART IV
| Item 15. | ExhibitsExhibit and Financial Statement Schedules |
| (a) | List of Documents Filed as Part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K |
| (3) | See Item 15 (b) below. |
| (b) | Exhibits Required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K |
| EXHIBIT | DESCRIPTION |
| | |
| 4.1 | Indenture dated as of January 19, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-1, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association), as eligible lender trustee, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas) , as indenture trustee, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on January 19, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-05. |
| | |
| 10.1 | Indenture dated as of January 19, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-1, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association), as eligible lender trustee, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas) , as indenture trustee, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on January 19, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-05. |
| | |
| 10.2 | Servicing Agreement dated as of January 19, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-1, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas), as indenture trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association), as eligible lender trustee, and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as servicer and as administrator, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 99.8 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on January 19, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-05. |
| | |
| 10.3 | Administration Agreement dated as of January 19, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-1, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas), as indenture trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association), as eligible lender trustee, Navient Funding, LLC, as depositor, and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as servicer and as administrator, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 99.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on January 19, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-05. |
| | |
| 31.1* | Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification (Section 302 Certification). |
| | |
| 33.1* | Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria concerning servicing activities of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.2022. |
| | |
| 33.2* | Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria concerning servicing activities of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.2022. |
| | |
| 34.1* | Independent Accountants’ Attestation Report concerning servicing activities of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.2022. |
| | |
| 34.2* | Independent Accountants’ Attestation Report concerning servicing activities of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019.2022. |
| | |
| 35.1* | Statement of Compliance of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator for the year ended December 31, 2019. |
| |
| * Filed herewith.2022. |
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed, on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED WITH REPORTS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE ACT BY REGISTRANTS WHICH HAVE NOT REGISTERED SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE ACT.
No annual report, proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy soliciting material has been sent to holders of the notes issued by the Issuing Entity during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Registrant does not intend to furnish such materials subsequent to the filing of the report.