Form 10-D SLC Student Loan Trust For: Apr 30

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-D

ASSET-BACKED ISSUER

DISTRIBUTION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly distribution period from

February 1, 2023 to April 30, 2023

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-164557-01

Central Index Key Number 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 Number of depositor: 0001164019

SLC STUDENT LOAN RECEIVABLES I, INC.

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of sponsor: 0000893955

THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

(469) 220-4928

(Telephone number including area code)

Registered/reporting pursuant to (check one)

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 ☐

---

PART I — DISTRIBUTION INFORMATION

On May 25, 2023, SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 (the “Trust”) made its regular quarterly distribution of funds to holders of its Student Loan Asset Backed Notes for the distribution period commencing on February 1, 2023 and ending on April 30, 2023. There is no activity to report under Rule 15Ga-1(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to the Trust for the distribution period referred to in the preceding sentence. The depositor filed its most recent report on Form ABS-15G on February 14, 2023 (such report is available at www.sec.gov under the depositor’s CIK No. 0001164019). The sponsor filed its most recent report on Form ABS-15G on February 8, 2023 (such report is available at www.sec.gov under the sponsor’s CIK No. 0000893955). The related Quarterly Distribution Report is attached as Exhibit 99.1.

 

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION

 

The following four paragraphs are disclosure received from Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), the successor subservicer for this transaction.

 

Navient Corporation (“Navient”) has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (the “CFPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”), in adversarial proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code, and various state consumer protection laws. 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 its 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 seller to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breach of representation, warranty or covenant.

 

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “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 federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, the FCRA, the FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws. The Attorneys General for the States of Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi and, New Jersey also initiated actions against Navient and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based on similar alleged acts or failures to act. 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 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 believes the allegations in the CFPB suit are false and that they improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new, previously unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively against only one servicer. Navient therefore has denied these allegations and are vigorously defending against the allegations in that case. At this point in time, it is reasonably possible that a loss contingency exists; however, Navient is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that an adverse ruling in the CFPB case may have on Navient’s consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operation or cash flows. As a result, it is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection with this matter and reserves have not been established. It is 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 Navient Solutions to fulfill an obligation to purchase student loans in connection with a breach of covenant. It is possible that an adverse ruling or rulings may have a material adverse impact on the trust student loans.  In either case, the payments on your notes may be adversely affected.

 

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.” This settlement in principle is subject, among other things, to final documentation and final court approval. Under the Settlement, Navient will forego the collection of defined balances for borrowers or co-borrowers of certain private loans — all of which were originated prior to Navient’s separation — who have received a discharge in bankruptcy during the periods covered by the agreements. As a result, Navient recorded $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. It anticipates that any cash contribution it will be required to make to these funds will not exceed $44 million in the aggregate and will be fully covered by insurance. The net impact to operating expense for this element of the settlement for the first quarter of 2023 was $0 due to the accrual of the offsetting insurance reimbursements.

 

The following three 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 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 the New York 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 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.  On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional 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 September 30, 2022, IKB filed a motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as to certain aspects of the First Department’s decision.  On September 30, 2022, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as to other aspects of that decision.  The First Department granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion and denied IKB’s motion.  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 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 immediately preceding two paragraphs that would materially affect their ability to perform their duties as Trustee under the Indenture for this transaction.

 

(a) 99.1 Quarterly Distribution Report for SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 in relation to the distribution on May 25, 2023.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

6