(3) The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in the Exhibit Index.

Not Applicable.

SUBSTITUTE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(2) TO FORM 10-K:

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB. Significant Obligors of Pool Assets (Financial Information).

Not Applicable.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB. Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives Instruments (Information Regarding Significant Enhancement Providers).

Not Applicable.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB. Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

Not Applicable.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB. Legal Proceedings.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (“Volkswagen AG”) and affiliates of Volkswagen AG and other Volkswagen(collectively, “Volkswagen Group companies,Companies”), including VW Credit, Inc. (“VW Credit”), have been the subject of intense scrutiny, ongoing investigations (civil and criminal) and civil litigation relating to TDI diesel engines. Volkswagen AG and other Volkswagen Group companiesCompanies have received subpoenas and inquiries from state attorneys general and other governmental and regulatory authorities and are responding to such investigations and inquiries, including in areas relating to securities, financing and tax.

One such legal action to which VW Credit Inc. andwas subject, or to which certain other Volkswagen Group companiesCompanies are still subject, is a civil action brought by the SEC pursuant to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2019. The complaint alleged that VW Credit, Inc., its indirect 100% parent, Volkswagen AG, an affiliate, Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC, and the former Chief Executive Officer of Volkswagen AG, Martin Winterkorn, violated certain provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws by selling certain bonds and asset-based securities without disclosure concerning the existence of defeat devices, as defined under U.S. law, in certain diesel vehicles, and related exposures.

On August 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part the Volkswagen defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing all claims related toagainst VW Credit Inc. andrelated to its issuance of certain bonds and automotive asset-backed securities (“ABS”). With respect to VW Credit, Inc., the court held that the SEC’s claims had already been released by virtue of Volkswagen’sVolkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC and VW Credit’s settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for claims made under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1833a, related to VW Credit Inc. and the ABS.

On September 4, 2020, the SEC filed an amended complaint and removed its claims against VW Credit, Inc.Credit. On December 7, 2020, the Volkswagen Group Companies entities named in the amended complaint filed an answer to the operative complaint denying liability for the claims asserted by the SEC and raising affirmative defenses. To date, the SEC has not sought to pursue a direct appeal as to the claims against VW Credit, Inc;Credit; however, the SEC may attempt to appeal after the resolution of all remaining claims in the amended complaint. The other Volkswagen Group entitiesCompanies named in the amended complaint intend to continue to contest the SEC’s allegationsclaims asserted in the SEC’s amended complaint and the relief sought by the SEC.

Indenture Trustee Litigation

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Indenture Trustee, has provided the following information for inclusion in this report on Form 10-K:

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 an action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court alleging that DBNTC and DBTCA failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for 544 private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. During the course of the litigation, plaintiffs dismissed the case from New York State Supreme Court and refiled two separate cases, one in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock California Case”). Pursuant to a settlement among the parties, the BlackRock SDNY Case was dismissed on December 6, 2018, and the BlackRock California Case was dismissed on January 11, 2019.

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 U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of New York’s 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’ 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 March 10, 2022, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the 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 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 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, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s 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 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. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. 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 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 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice all claims as to seven 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. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. 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. On November 10, 2022, the First Department granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and denied IKB’s separate motion for reargument and leave to appeal. 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. Discovery is ongoing.

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 under the related servicing agreement for this transaction.

Except as described above, no legal proceedings are pending against any of VW Credit, Inc. (in its capacity as the sponsor (the “Sponsor”), in its capacity as an originator contemplated by Item 1110(b) of Regulation AB (the “Originator”), in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer”) and in its capacity as administrator of Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 2020-1 (the “Issuing Entity”)), Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC (the “Depositor”), Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the “Indenture Trustee”), Citicorp Trust Delaware, National Association (the “Issuer Delaware Trustee”), Citibank, N.A. (the “Owner Trustee”), or the Issuing Entity or of which any property of the foregoing is the subject that are or would be material to holders of the asset-backed notes (the “Notes”) or the asset-backed certificate (the “Certificate”). No such proceedings are known to be contemplated by governmental authorities.