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

November 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018

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)

Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of the issuing entity)	04-3598719 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
4000 Regent Boulevard C2B-260 Irving, Texas (Address of principal executive offices of the issuing entity)	75063 (Zip Code)

(469) 220-4928

(Telephone number including area code)

Registered/reporting pursuant to (check one)

Title of class	Section 12(b)	Section 12(g)	Section 15(d)	Name of exchange (If Section 12(b))
Class A Student Loan Asset Backed Notes	☐	☐	☑

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

Item 1. Distribution and Pool Performance Information.

On February 26, 2018, 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 November 1, 2017 and ending on January 31, 2018. 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 12, 2018 (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 12, 2018 (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 

Item 2. Legal Proceedings.   
         

The following four paragraphs are disclosures received from Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), the successor subservicer for the SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 transaction:

On January 18, 2017, the CFPB and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington (collectively the “Attorneys General”) initiated civil actions naming Navient Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging violations of Federal and State consumer protection statutes, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and various state consumer protection laws. These civil actions are related to the aforementioned CIDs and the NORA letter that were previously issued by the CFPB and the Attorneys General. In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed by nongovernmental parties or may be filed by additional governmental or nongovernmental parties, including other state attorneys general or private litigants, seeking damages or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and the Attorneys General.  One such lawsuit was filed on October 5, 2017 by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, naming Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC as defendants alleging claims and seeking legal and equitable relief that are substantially similar to claims made and relief by the CFPB and other Attorneys General.  The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 20, 2017 with respect to the Attorneys General actions and on March 24, 2017 with respect to the CFPB action.  In April 2017, the CFPB filed their response to our Motion to Dismiss and in May 2017, we filed our response.  A hearing on our Motion to Dismiss was held on June 27, 2017 and the Court denied our motion on August 4, 2017.  On May 24, 2017, the WA AG filed their response to our Motion to Dismiss and on July 5, 2017, we filed our response.  The Motion to Dismiss was denied on July 10, 2017, after a hearing.  On May 24, 2017, the IL AG filed their response to our Motion to Dismiss and on June 30, 2017, we filed our response. A hearing on our Motion to Dismiss was held on July 18, 2017 and as of March 9, 2018, the Court has not ruled on the motion.   In relation to the Pennsylvania Attorney General lawsuit, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2017.  The motion has been heard by the court.  As the Company has previously stated, we believe the suits improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new servicing standards applied retroactively and applied only against one servicer and that the allegations are false. We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations included in these lawsuits and any subsequent lawsuits that may be filed by governmental or nongovernmental parties, including other state attorneys general or private litigants, seeking similar damages and remedies. At this point in time, the Company is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the ultimate impact that these legal proceedings may have on the Company’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 the Company.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings 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. The Court ruled on our Motion to Dismiss on September 6, 2017 and dismissed the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a further amended and restated complaint on November 17, 2017.  The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations.   

During the fourth quarter of 2017, Navient Corporation and certain Navient officers were named in two putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock entitled Pope v. Navient Corporation, et al and Gross v. Navient Corporation, et al.  These cases have been consolidated.  The Navient defendants intend to vigorously defend against these allegations. 

At this stage in the proceedings, we are unable to anticipate the timing of resolution or the ultimate impact, if any, that the legal proceedings may have on the consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash-flows of Navient and its affiliates. 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 the Company.

The following five paragraphs are disclosures received from Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, the successor indenture trustee and successor indenture administrator for the SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 transaction, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, the successor eligible lender trustee for the SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 transaction:

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by pooling and servicing agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.   The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, 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 plaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.  On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  DBNTC and DBTCA’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on March 26, 2018, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due on April 16, 2018.  Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action.  On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  DBNTC and DBTCA’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on March 16, 2018, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due on April 16, 2018.  Discovery is ongoing.

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 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 that the total realized losses 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: 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.  As of May 30, 2017, Royal Park’s renewed motion for class certification has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.  Discovery is ongoing.  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 October 10, 2017, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss Royal Park’s separate, additional complaint.  As of November 30, 2017, DBNTC’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.

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.  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 four immediately preceding paragraphs) that would materially affect their ability to perform their duties as trustee under the Indenture for this transaction.

Item 10. Exhibits.

(a) 99.1 Quarterly Distribution Report for SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 in relation to the distribution on February 26, 2018.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit  Number	Exhibit
99.1	Quarterly Distribution Report for SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1 in relation to the distribution on February 26, 2018.

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.

	SLC STUDENT LOAN RECEIVABLES I, INC.
Dated: March 12, 2018	By:	/s/ Calvin C. Balliet
	Name:	Calvin C. Balliet
	Title:	Chairman of the Board