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, 20182019 or
| ☐ | Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the transition period from to_________to
Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-164557-01
Central Index Key of issuing entity: 0001493611
SLC STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2010-1
(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)
Commission file number of depositor: 333-164557
Central Index Key of depositor: 0001164019
SLC STUDENT LOAN RECEIVABLES I, INC.
(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)
Central Index Key of sponsor: 0000893955
THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION
(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)
| Delaware |
| 04-3598719 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
| (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
4000 Regent Boulevard |
|
|
| C2B-260 |
|
|
| Irving, Texas |
| 75063 |
| (Address of principal executive offices) |
| (Zip Code) |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (469) 220-4928
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 the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 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 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). Yes ☐ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒
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 is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the 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 prices of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
REGISTRANT HAS NO VOTING OR NON-VOTING COMMON EQUITY OUTSTANDING HELD BY NON-AFFILIATES.
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of December 31, 2018.2019.
NOT APPLICABLE.
List hereunder the following documents if incorporated by reference and the Part of the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into which the document is incorporated: (1) Any annual report to security holders; (2) Any proxy or information statement; and (3) Any prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) or (c) under the Securities Act of 1933. The listed documents should be clearly described for identification purposes (e.g., annual report to security holders).
NOT APPLICABLE.
PART I
The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
| Item 3. | Legal Proceedings. |
| Item 1B. | Unresolved Staff Comments. |
None.
| Item 4. | Mine Safety Disclosures. |
Not applicable.
The following substitute information is provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB. Significant Obligors of Pool Assets.
No single obligor represents 10% or more of the asset pool held by SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 (the “Trust”).
Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB. Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives Instruments.
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement or other support with respect to either payment on the pool assets held by the Trust or payments on the notes (the “Notes”) or the certificate (the “Certificate”) issued by the Trust.
Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB. Certain Derivatives Instruments.
No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external derivative instruments to either payment on the pool assets held by the Trust or payments on the Notes or the Certificate.
Item 1117 of Regulation AB. Legal Proceedings.
Other than as stated in the following paragraphs, there are no legal proceedings that would be material to investors that are pending against the depositor, the issuing entity or, to the knowledge of the registrant and not previously disclosed, the sponsor, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company or Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), nor does the registrant know of any such proceeding contemplated by any governmental authorities.
The following three paragraphs are disclosuredisclosures received from Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), the servicersuccessor subservicer for this transaction.
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 several 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 civil action against Navient Corporation 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 recently initiated similar actions against Navient Corporation and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws. We refer to the Illinois, Washington, Pennsylvania, California and Mississippi 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. As Navient Corporation 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, Corporation, 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Theseamended (the “Exchange Act”). After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption (in re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation), the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and Navient Corporation filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018. In MarchDecember 2019, and before a ruling on Navient Corporation’sthe Court denied Navient’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.and discovery is ongoing. Navient Corporation intendscontinues to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Navient has otherwise denieddeny the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
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’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 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 sellerNavient Solutions to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breach of representation, warranty or covenant. 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 effect on the trust student loans.
In either case, the payments on your notes may be adversely affected.
The following eightnine paragraphs are disclosuresdisclosure received from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company the successor indenture trustee and successor indenture administrator for the SLC Student LoanDeutsche Bank Trust 2010-1 transaction,Company Americas.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas the successor eligible lender trustee for the SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 transaction:
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 “BlackRock SDNY Case”) and the other in the Superior Court of California, Orange County (the “BlackRock “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 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. Royal Park’s complaint alleges thatDuring the total realized lossescourse of the ten trusts amount to over U.S. $3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part plaintiffs’ claims:litigation, the court dismissed plaintiff’s TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification. On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to propose a redefined class. On May 1, 2017, Royal Park filed a renewed motion for class certification. On March 29, 2018, the court denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification with prejudice. On April 13, 2018, Royal Park filed a petition to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking appellate review of the district court’s denial of Royal Park’s motion for class certification. On August 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Royal Park’s petition for appellate review. Discovery is ongoing.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. On OctoberPursuant to a settlement between the parties, both cases were dismissed on June 10, 2017, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint. On August 13, 2018, the court issued an order: (i) staying Royal Park’s separate, additional case until the resolution of Royal Park’s underlying case; and (ii) denying DBNTC’s motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint without prejudice to the motion’s refiling once the stay is lifted.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. Both motions have been briefed byOn October 15, 2019, the parties.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. Discovery is stayed.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. BothAs of March 8, 2019, both motions for summary judgment have been briefed and are being briefedawaiting decision by the parties.court. Discovery is ongoing.
On March 24, 2015, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and five related entities (collectively “Western & Southern”), as investors in 18 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, against DBNTC as trustee for 12 of those trusts, 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, based on DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens; a motion 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. On June 24, 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 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’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to Commerzbank’s claim 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’s 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 holder of the certificates at issue to file suit, it may still obtain that authorization from the registered holder. 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’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence will proceed. Commerzbank’s claim under 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 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. BothAs of March 8, 2019, both motions for summary judgment have been briefed and are being briefedawaiting decision by the parties.court. 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, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.
It is DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s belief that they have no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s and DBNTC’s current evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the seven immediately preceding paragraphs)eight 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:
| 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 Operations. |
| Item 7A. | Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk. |
| Item 8. | Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. |
| Item 9. | Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure. |
| Item 9A. | Controls and Procedures. |
| Item 9B. | Other Information. |
Nothing to report.
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 and Related Transactions, and Director Independence. |
| Item 14. | Principal Accounting Fees and Services. |
The following substitute information is provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:
Item 1119 of Regulation AB. Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.
Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.
The reports required by Item 1122(a) and (b) of, or relating to, all parties determined by the registrant to be participating in the servicing function with respect to the issuing entity are attached to this Form 10-K as Exhibits 33.1, 33.2, 34.1 and 34.2.
Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement.
The statements required by Item 1123 are attached to this Form 10-K as Exhibits 35.1 and 35.2.
PART IV
| Item 15. | Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules. |
| (a) | The following documents are filed as part of this report: |
| (b) | Exhibits Required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K. |
Exhibit Number |
| Description |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| Indenture, dated as of July 6, 2010, among SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 (the “Trust”), Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (as successor to Citibank, N.A.), as eligible lender trustee (the “Eligible Lender Trustee”), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (which itself was successor to Citibank, N.A.)) as indenture administrator (in such capacity, the “Indenture Administrator”), and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as successor to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (which itself was successor to U.S. Bank National Association)) as indenture trustee (in such capacity, the “Indenture Trustee”), incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Trust on July 6, 2010 (File No. 333-164557-01). |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 Subservicing Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2010, between the Servicer and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc. and, formerly, Sallie Mae, Inc.) (the “Successor Servicer”), and as acknowledged and agreed to by the Subservicer, the Indenture Trustee, the Administrator, the Depositor, the Eligible Lender Trustee and the Indenture Administrator, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10 of the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Trust on January 5, 2011 (File No. 333-164557-01). |
*
Filed herewith
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
| SLC STUDENT LOAN RECEIVABLES I, INC. |
|
|
|
Dated: March 29, 201930, 2020 | By: | /s/ Calvin C. BallietCharles Jacques |
|
| Name: | Calvin C. BallietCharles Jacques |
|
| Title: | Chairman of the BoardPresident |
|
| (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
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 to security holders, proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy soliciting material has been sent to security holders or is anticipated to be furnished to security holders subsequent to the filing of this annual report on Form 10-K.
1011