Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Commitments

When we approve a Private Education Loan at the beginning of an academic year, that approval may cover the borrowing for the entire academic year. As such, we do not always disburse the full amount of the loan at the time of such approval, but instead have a commitment to fund a portion of the loan at a later date (usually at the start of the second semester or subsequent trimesters). At December 31, 2019, we had $1.9 billion of outstanding contractual loan commitments which we expect to fund during the remainder of the 2019/2020 academic year. At December 31, 2019, we had a $2 million reserve recorded in “Other Liabilities” to cover expected losses that may occur during the one-year loss emergence period on these unfunded commitments.

Regulatory Matters

In May 2014, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the CFPB as part of the CFPB’s separate investigation relating to customer complaints, fees and charges assessed in connection with the servicing of student loans and related collection practices of pre-Spin-Off SLM by entities now subsidiaries of Navient during a time period prior to the Spin-Off (the “CFPB Investigation”). Two state attorneys general also provided the Bank identical CIDs and other state attorneys general have become involved in the inquiry over time (collectively, the “Multi-State Investigation”). To the extent requested, the Bank has been cooperating fully with the CFPB and the attorneys general conducting the Multi-State Investigation. Given the timeframe covered by the CIDs, the CFPB Investigation and the Multi-State Investigation, and the focus on practices and procedures previously conducted by Navient and its servicing subsidiaries prior to the Spin-Off, Navient is leading the response to these investigations. Consequently, we have no basis from which to estimate either the duration or ultimate outcome of these investigations.

With regard to the CFPB Investigation, we note that on January 18, 2017, the CFPB filed a complaint in federal court in Pennsylvania against Navient, along with its subsidiaries, Navient Solutions, Inc. and Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. The complaint alleges these Navient entities, among other things, engaged in deceptive practices with respect to their historic servicing and debt collection practices. Neither SLM, the Bank, nor any of their current subsidiaries are named in, or otherwise a party to, the lawsuit and are not alleged to have engaged in any wrongdoing. The CFPB’s complaint asserts Navient’s assumption of these liabilities pursuant to the Separation and Distribution Agreement.

On January 18, 2017, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against Navient - its subsidiaries Navient Solutions, Inc., Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., and General Revenue Corporation - and the Bank arising out of the Multi-State Investigation. On March 20, 2017, the Bank moved to dismiss the Illinois Attorney General action as to the Bank, arguing, among other things, the complaint failed to allege with sufficient particularity or specificity how the Bank was responsible for any of the alleged conduct, most of which predated the Bank’s existence. On July 10, 2018, the Court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. On August 7, 2018, the Illinois Attorney General filed a First Amended Complaint and, on October 9, 2018, the Bank again moved to dismiss the action based on grounds similar to those raised in its March 20, 2017 motion. The Illinois Attorney General filed its response on November 21, 2018, and the Bank filed its reply on December 10, 2018. Oral argument on the motion took place on January 9, 2019. The Court took the motion under advisement.

On July 17, 2018, the Mississippi Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Mississippi state court against Navient, Navient Solutions, LLC, and the Bank arising out of the Multi-State Investigation. The complaint alleges unfair and deceptive trade practices against all three defendants as to private loan origination practices from 2000 to 2009, and against the two Navient defendants as to servicing practices between 2010 and the present. The complaint further alleges that Navient assumed responsibility for these matters under the Separation and Distribution Agreement for alleged conduct that pre-dated the Spin-Off. On September 27, 2018, the Mississippi Attorney General filed an amended complaint. On October 8, 2018, the Bank moved to dismiss the Mississippi Attorney General’s action as to the Bank, arguing, among other things, that the complaint

failed to allege with sufficient particularity or specificity how the Bank was responsible for any of the alleged conduct, most of which predated the Bank’s existence. On November 20, 2018, the Mississippi Attorney General filed an opposition brief and the Bank filed a reply on December 21, 2018. The court heard oral argument on the Bank’s motion to dismiss on April 11, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the court entered an order denying the Bank’s motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2019, the Bank filed with the Supreme Court of Mississippi a petition for interlocutory appeal. The Mississippi Attorney General filed an opposition to the petition for interlocutory appeal on September 19, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of Mississippi granted the Bank’s petition for interlocutory appeal and stayed the trial court proceedings.

To date, three other state attorneys general (California, Washington and Pennsylvania) have filed suits against Navient and one or more of its current subsidiaries related to matters arising from the Multi-State Investigation. Neither SLM, the Bank, nor any of their current subsidiaries are named in, or otherwise a party to, the California, Washington or Pennsylvania lawsuits, and no claims are asserted against them. Each complaint asserts in its own fashion that Navient assumed responsibility under the Separation and Distribution Agreement for the alleged conduct in the complaints prior to the Spin-Off. On September 24, 2018, the Washington Attorney General served a third-party subpoena on the Bank calling for the production of certain records. The Bank has responded to the subpoena.

Additional lawsuits may arise from the Multi-State Investigation which may or may not name the Company, the Bank or any of their current subsidiaries as parties to these suits. Pursuant to the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, and as contemplated by the structure of the Spin-Off, Navient is legally obligated to indemnify the Bank against all claims, actions, damages, losses or expenses that may arise from the conduct of all activities of pre-Spin-Off SLM occurring prior to the Spin-Off, except for certain liabilities related to the conduct of the pre-Spin-Off consumer banking business that were specifically assumed by the Bank (and as to which the Bank is obligated to indemnify Navient). Navient has acknowledged its indemnification obligations under the Separation and Distribution Agreement, in connection with the Multi-State Investigation and the related lawsuits in which the Bank has been named as a party. Navient has informed the Bank, however, that it believes that the Bank may be responsible to indemnify Navient against certain potential liabilities arising from the above-described lawsuits under the Separation and Distribution Agreement and/or a separate loan servicing agreement between the parties, and has suggested that the parties defer further discussion regarding indemnification obligations, and reimbursement of ongoing legal costs, in connection with the lawsuits until the lawsuits are resolved. The Bank disagrees with Navient’s position and the Bank has reiterated to Navient that Navient is responsible for promptly indemnifying the Bank against all liabilities arising out of the conduct of pre-Spin-Off SLM that are at issue in the Multi-State Investigation and in the above-described lawsuits.

Contingencies

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are routinely defendants in or parties to pending and threatened legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. These actions and proceedings may be based on alleged violations of consumer protection, securities, employment and other laws. In certain of these actions and proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damage may be asserted against us and our subsidiaries.

It is common for the Company, our subsidiaries and affiliates to receive information and document requests and investigative demands from state attorneys general, legislative committees, and administrative agencies. These requests may be for informational or regulatory purposes and may relate to our business practices, the industries in which we operate, or other companies with whom we conduct business. Our practice has been and continues to be to cooperate with these bodies and be responsive to any such requests.

We are required to establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters where those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. When loss contingencies are not both probable and estimable, we do not establish reserves.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe there are loss contingencies, if any, arising from pending investigations, litigation or regulatory matters for which reserves should be established.