UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

333-269194-02333-249906-03

(Commission File Number of Issuing Entity)

Volkswagen Auto Loan EnhancedLease Trust 2023-22023-A

(Exact name of Issuing Entity as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of Issuing Entity: 00019981240001990353

Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC

(Exact name of Depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of Depositor: 0001182534

VW Credit, Inc.

(Exact name of Sponsor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of Securitizer: 0000833733

(703) 364-7000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act:     None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    ¨  Yes    þ  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act.    ¨ Yes þ 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. þ 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 Regulation 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).

þ Yes    ¨ No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, o a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,”company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

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 effectivenesseffectiveness 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.¨ Not Applicable

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 Securities Exchange Act). Yes  ¨No  þ

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. None

Documents incorporated by reference:    None

FORM 10-K

PART 1

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(1) TO FORM 10-K:

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not Applicable.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not Applicable.

PART II

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN OMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL INSTRUCTION J(1) TO FORM 10-K:

Item 9B. Other Information.

None.

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(1) TO FORM 10-K:

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

Item 16. Form 10-K Summary.

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.

VW Credit, Inc. ("VW Credit") and its affiliates are parties to, or are periodically otherwise involved in, reviews, investigations, and proceedings (both formal and informal), and information gathering requests by various federal, state and local government authorities.

Since 2015, when the EPA issued Notices of Violation relating to irregularities that had been discovered in the software installed in turbocharged direct injection (TDI) vehicles (the “Affected Vehicles”), Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (“Volkswagen AG”) and its affiliates (collectively, “Volkswagen Group Companies”), including VW Credit, have been the subject of intense scrutiny, ongoing investigations (civil and criminal) and civil litigation relating to Affected Vehicles in the United States, Germany and the rest of the world, including lawsuits by the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice and the attorneys general of numerous states, as well as several private civil lawsuits brought by owners and lessees of Affected Vehicles and dealers. In addition, Volkswagen Group Companies 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 was 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, 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 against VW Credit related to its issuance of automotive asset-backed securities (“ABS”). With respect to VW Credit, the court held that the SEC’s claims had already been released by virtue of Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America Inc.’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 and the ABS.

On September 4, 2020, the SEC filed an amended complaint and removed its claims against VW Credit. On December 7, 2020, the Volkswagen Group Companies 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. On March 1, 2024, Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC submitted to the SEC an executed consent to enter into a final judgment, without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC’s amended complaint, which requires, among other things, payment in the amount of $48,750,000, and approval by the Commissioners of the SEC and the court. If the court enters the final judgment, the SEC has agreed to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the remaining defendants, Volkswagen AG and Martin Winterkorn. The proposed final judgment, along with the subsequently filed stipulation, would fully resolve the SEC’s claims against all defendants in this lawsuit. Should the court decline to enter the proposed final judgment, the parties agree that Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC’s consent shall be withdrawn, and that neither party will be bound to it.

The Volkswagen Group Companies cannot predict the ultimate outcome or timing of any resolution with the SEC, or the effect on their business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

From 2015 to 2023, the Volkswagen Group Companies recognized over €30 billion in expenses directly related to the diesel issue. Work in respect of the legal proceedings that are still pending in the United States and the rest of the world is ongoing and is expected to continue for some time. Ongoing and potential further legal proceedings related to the diesel issue could result in considerable further legal and other expenses.

OwnerUTI Trustee, SUBI Trustee and Administrative Trustee Litigation

U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as the OwnerUTI Trustee, SUBI trustee and the Administrative Trustee has provided the following information for inclusion in this report on Form 10-K:

U.S. Bank N.A. and other large financial institutions have been sued in their capacity as trustee or successor trustee for certain residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The complaints, primarily filed by investors or investor groups against U.S. Bank N.A. and similar institutions, allege the trustees caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers to comply with the governing agreements for these RMBS trusts. Plaintiffs generally assert causes of action based upon the trustees’ purported failures to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties, notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.

U.S. Bank N.A. denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors, that it has meritorious defenses, and it has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously. However, U.S. Bank N.A. cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts.

On March 9, 2018, a law firm purporting to represent fifteen Delaware statutory trusts (the “DSTs”) that issued securities backed by student loans (the “Student Loans”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against U.S. Bank N.A. in its capacities as indenture trustee and successor special servicer, and three other institutions in their respective transaction capacities, with respect to the DSTs and the Student Loans. This lawsuit is captioned The National Collegiate Student Loan Master Trust I, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0167-JRS (Del. Ch.) (the “NCMSLT Action”). The complaint, as amended on June 15, 2018, alleged that the DSTs have been harmed as a result of purported misconduct or omissions by the defendants concerning administration of the trusts and special servicing of the Student Loans. Since the filing of the NCMSLT Action, certain Student Loan borrowers have made assertions against U.S. Bank N.A. concerning special servicing that appear to be based on certain allegations made on behalf of the DSTs in the NCMSLT Action.

U.S. Bank N.A. has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the operative complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Chancery Court Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, a stay of the case while other prior filed disputes involving the DSTs and the Student Loans are litigated. On November 7, 2018, the Court ruled that the case should be stayed in its entirety pending resolution of the first-filed cases. On January 21, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating for pretrial purposes the NCMSLT Action and three other lawsuits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery concerning the DSTs and the Student Loans, which remains pending.

U.S. Bank N.A. denies liability in the NCMSLT Action and believes it has performed its obligations as indenture trustee and special servicer in good faith and in compliance in all material respects with the terms of the agreements governing the DSTs and that it has meritorious defenses. It has contested and intends to continue contesting the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

Owner Trustee Litigation

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware, as the Owner 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 April 26, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the court’s summary judgment order.

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. 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 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 EnhancedLease Trust 2023-22023-A (the “Issuing Entity”)), Volkswagen Auto Lease/Loan Underwritten Funding, LLC (the “Depositor”), Citibank, N.A. (the “Indenture Trustee”), VW Credit Leasing, Ltd. (the “Origination Trust”), Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware (the “Owner Trustee”), U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (in its capacity as UTI trustee (the “Owner“UTI Trustee”), in its capacity as transaction SUBI trustee (the “Transaction SUBI Trustee”) and in its capacity as administrative trustee (the “Administrative 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.

Item 1119 of Regulation AB. Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.

Information requiredThe Sponsor is the originator, as contemplated by Item 11191110 of Regulation AB, has been omitted from this report on Form 10-Kof all of the pool assets owned by the Issuing Entity. The Sponsor is also the Servicer. The Depositor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Sponsor and, therefore, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the originator and the Servicer. The Issuing Entity was formed by the Depositor. VW Credit, Inc. is the Administrator of the Issuing Entity and the Depositor is the holder of the Issuing Entity’s Certificate, representing the residual interest in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.Issuing Entity. The Sponsor is settlor and initial beneficiary of the Origination Trust. The asset pool represents a portfolio of assets held by the Origination Trust in which the Issuing Entity holds a beneficial interest.

Other than as specified in this Item above, none of VW Credit, Inc., the Depositor, the Origination Trust or the Issuing Entity is an affiliate of any of the following parties, and, except as described below, none of the following parties are affiliates of any of the other following parties:

The Owner Trustee and the Issuer Delaware Trustee are affiliates.

There are no significant obligors contemplated by Item 1112 of Regulation AB, enhancement or support providers contemplated by Item 1114 or 1115 of Regulation AB, or other material parties related to the Notes contemplated by Item 1101(d)(1) of Regulation AB.

In addition, to the best of our knowledge, there are no business relationships, agreements, arrangements, transactions or understandings entered into outside the ordinary course of business or on terms other than would be obtained in an arm’s length transaction with an unrelated third party, apart from the asset-backed securities transaction involving the issuance of the Notes and the Certificate by the Issuing Entity, between VW Credit, Inc. (in its capacities as Sponsor, Originator, Servicer or Administrator) the Depositor, the Origination Trust, the Indenture Trustee, the Owner Trustee, the Issuer Delaware Trustee, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (in its capacities as UTI Trustee, Transaction SUBI Trustee and Administrative Trustee), the Delaware Trustee and the Issuing Entity, or any affiliates of such parties, that currently exists or that existed during the past two years and that is material to an investor’s understanding of the Notes.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

The Servicer and 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 an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB applicable to it (each, a “Servicing Assessment Report”), which Servicing Assessment Reports are attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. In addition, each of the Servicer and the Indenture Trustee has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by a registered public accounting firm, which reports are also attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. Neither the Indenture Trustee’s Servicing Assessment Report nor the Indenture Trustee’s Attestation Report has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the Indenture Trustee.

The Servicer complied in all material respects with the servicing criteria applicable to it.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement.

The Servicer has completed a statement of compliance with its activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement (a “Compliance Statement”), signed by an authorized officer of the Servicer. The Compliance Statement is attached as Exhibit 35.1 to this Form 10-K.

EXHIBIT INDEX

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Depositor has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

March 27, 2024