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 333-190926 (the “Registrant”) or to the Registrant’s knowledge, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as the Indenture Trustee, or Computershare Trust Company, N.A., as agent for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 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 fivethree paragraphs are disclosure received from Navient Solutions, LLC, (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), the servicer for this transaction.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation (“Navient”), certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings 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. Additionally, two class actions were 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018. In the third quarter of 2021, Navient reached tentative agreements to settle both cases. The settlements, in which Navient and the other defendants expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing or fault, are subject to Court approval after notice and hearing. The settlement in Lord Abbett has received final approval. A hearing on final approval of the settlement in the In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation is pending, and Navient can give no assurance whether the settlement will receive the required approval. The settlements are covered by insurance.

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 against Navient or its affiliates or claims made in the additional legal proceedings 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 three paragraphs are disclosure received from Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“CTC”), as agent for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo Bank”) concerning Wells Fargo Bank’s  role as trustee of certain residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.

In December 2014, Phoenix Light SF Limited and certain related entities and the National Credit Union Administration (“NCUA”(collectively, “Phoenix Light”) filed complaintsa complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against Wells Fargo Bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of RMBSresidential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts. Complaints 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, as trustee, caused losses to investors, and plaintiffs assert causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee’s alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. On July 12, 2022, the district court dismissed Phoenix Light’s claims and entered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The district court also dismissed certain of the claims asserted by Commerzbank AG. Wells Fargo & Company previously settled two class action lawsuits with similar allegations that wereactions filed in November 2014 and December 2016 by institutional investors inand an action filed by the Southern District of New York and New York state court, respectively.National Credit Union Administration with similar allegations. In addition, Park Royal I LLC and Park Royal II LLC have filed complaints that were consolidated in New York state court alleging Wells Fargo Bank, as trustee, failed to take appropriate actions upon learning of defective mortgage loan documentation.

In August 2014 and August 2015, Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (“Nomura”) and Natixis Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“Natixis”) filed a total of seven third-party complaints against Wells Fargo Bank in New York state court. In the underlying first-party actions, Nomura and Natixis have been sued for alleged breaches of representations and warranties made in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by them. In the third-party actions, Nomura and Natixis allege that Wells Fargo Bank, as master servicer, primary servicer or securities administrator, failed to notify Nomura and Natixis of their own breaches, failed to properly oversee the primary servicers, and failed to adhere to accepted servicing practices. Natixis additionally alleges that Wells Fargo Bank failed to perform default oversight duties. In March 2021, the Company2022, Wells Fargo Bank entered into an agreement to resolvesettle the casesix actions filed by Nomura, and the NCUA.actions have been voluntarily dismissed. In the remaining action filed by Natixis, Wells Fargo Bank has asserted counterclaims alleging that Natixis failed to provide Wells Fargo Bank notice of its representation and warranty breaches.

With respect to each of the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs'plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the related RMBS trusts.