Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

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). We estimate expected credit losses over the contractual period in which we are exposed to credit risk via a contractual obligation to extend credit, unless that obligation is unconditionally cancellable by us. At March 31, 2020, we had $450 million of outstanding contractual loan commitments which we expect to fund during the remainder of the 2019/2020 academic year. At March 31, 2020, we had a $30 million reserve recorded in “Other Liabilities” to cover lifetime expected credit losses on these unfunded commitments. See Note 1, “Significant Accounting Policies — Allowance for Credit Losses — Off-Balance Sheet Exposure for Contractual Loan Commitments” for additional information.

Regulatory Matters

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. The Mississippi Attorney General has since agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims against the Bank in the underlying case. On March 31, 2020, the Mississippi Attorney General and the Bank filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal with the Supreme Court of Mississippi. On April 10, 2020, the Mississippi Attorney General filed with the trial court a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice as to the Bank.

For additional information regarding our regulatory matters, see Note 18, “Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees” in our 2019 Form 10-K.

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 damages 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.