UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-190926-03

Central Index Key of issuing entity: 0001599033

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-190926

Central Index Key of depositor: 0000949114

Central Index Key of sponsor: 0001601725

c/o Deutsche Bank Trust Company AmericasDelaware

(703) 984-6890

PART I

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

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

Items 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB. Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives

Items 1115(b) of Regulation AB. Credit Derivatives Instruments

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 333-190926 (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 fivefour 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.

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”)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 federalFederal and stateState consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, the FCRA, the FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws. In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania initiated a civil action against Navient and Navient Solutions, containing similar alleged violations of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Attorneys General for the States of Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, and in October 2020, New Jersey have also initiated actions against Navient and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based onupon similar alleged acts or failures to act. We refer to the Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi and New Jersey Attorneys General collectively as 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. In January 2022, Navient entered into a series of Consent Judgment and Orders (the “Agreements”) with 40 state attorneys generalState 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 will cancelhas cancelled the loan balancesbalance of approximately 66,000 borrowers with qualifying private education loansPrivate Education Loans that were originated largely between 2002 and 2010 and later defaulted and charged off. The loans to be cancelled have aggregate outstanding balances of approximately $1.7 billion. The expense to Navient to cancel these loans iswas approximately $50 million which represents the amount of expected future recoveries of these charged-off loans on the balance sheet. In addition, Navient agreed to make a one-time payment of approximately $145 million to the states. In the fourth quarter of 2021 when such loss became probable, Navient recognized total regulatory expenses of approximately $205 million related to this matter.

As Navient has previously stated, 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 areis vigorously defending against the allegations in that case.

On April 12, 2023, Navient reached an agreement in principle (“Settlement”) with certain plaintiffs for a nationwide settlement of claims raised in the following bankruptcy adversary actions: Coyle v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 22-80018 (Bankr. W.D. Mich.); Homaidan v. SLM Corp., No. 1:17-ap-01085 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.); Mazloom v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 20-80033-6 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.); and Woodard v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 08-81442 (Bankr. D. Neb.) collectively referred to as the “Bankruptcy Cases.” The Settlement has received final court approval. Under the Settlement, Navient will forego the collection of defined balances for borrowers or any additional legal proceedings discussed above mayco-borrowers of certain private loans — all of which were originated prior to Navient’s separation — who have on Navient’s consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operation or cash flows.received a discharge in bankruptcy during the periods covered by the agreements. As a result, Navient recorded a $23 million additional private loan provision for loan losses in the first quarter of 2023 related to the estimated future charge offs that are expected to occur. Navient has also agreed to fund settlement funds. Navient anticipates that any cash contribution it iswill be required to make to these funds will not possible atexceed $44 million in the aggregate and will be fully covered by insurance. The net impact to operating expense for 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 abilityelement of the depositor,settlement for the servicer or a sellerfirst quarter of 2023 was $0 due to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breachthe accrual of representation, warranty or covenant. 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 effect on the trust student loans. In either case, the payments on your notes may be adversely affected.offsetting insurance reimbursements.

The following fivethree 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-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts.

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 description of Commerzbank case below), filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  On October 27, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs’ standing.  On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment, granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s initial motion for summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.  As a result of that order, all of plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

On 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 TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.  IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages.  On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss.  On January 6, 2017 and June 20, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissingdismissed with prejudice all claims as to three trusts.  On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additionalseven trusts.  On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’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 contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA.  The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss.  IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed.  On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss.  That appeal has been fully briefed.  On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order.  That appeal is being briefed.On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss.  After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021.  On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint.  On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts.  On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust.  On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts.  On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue.  On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue.  Discovery is ongoing.

It is DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s belief that they have no pending legal proceedings, including, based on DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s currentpresent evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the immediately preceding fourtwo paragraphs that would materially affect their ability to perform their duties as Trustee under the Indenture for this transaction.

PART II

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

PART III

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

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

Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria

Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement

PART IV

SIGNATURES

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.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS