The Company 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 (“TCPA”), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and various other state consumer protection laws.

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA 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, LLC (“Solutions”), containing similar alleged violations of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Additionally, the Attorneys General for the States of California and Mississippi recently initiated similar actions against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws. We refer to the Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, 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 the Company 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. For additional information on these civil actions, please refer to section entitled “Regulatory Matters” below.

At this point in time, the Company is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the 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.

In addition, Navient and its subsidiaries are subject to examination or regulation by the SEC, CFPB, FFIEC, ED and various state agencies as part of its ordinary course of business. Items or matters similar to or different from those described above may arise during the course of those examinations. We also routinely receive inquiries or requests from various regulatory entities or bodies or government agencies concerning our business or our assets. Generally, the Company endeavors to cooperate with each such inquiry or request.

As previously disclosed, the Company and various of its subsidiaries have been subject to the following investigations and inquiries:

•

In December 2013, Navient received Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) issued by the Illinois Attorney General, the Washington Attorney General and multiple other state Attorneys General. According to the CIDs, the investigations were initiated to ascertain whether any practices declared to be unlawful under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act have occurred or are about to occur. The Company subsequently received separate but similar CIDs or subpoenas from the Attorneys General for the District of Columbia, Kansas, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey and New York. We may receive additional CIDs or subpoenas from these or other Attorneys General with respect to similar or different matters.

•

In April 2014, Solutions received a CID from the CFPB as part of the CFPB’s separate investigation regarding allegations relating to Navient’s disclosures and assessment of late fees and other matters. Navient has received a series of supplemental CIDs on these matters. In August 2015, Solutions received a letter from the CFPB notifying Solutions that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (“NORA”) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement was considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against Solutions. The NORA letter related to a previously disclosed investigation into Solutions’ disclosures and assessment of late fees and other matters and states that, in connection with any action, the CFPB may seek restitution, civil monetary penalties and corrective action against Solutions. The Company responded to the NORA letter in September 2015.

•

In November 2014, Navient’s subsidiary, Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (“Pioneer”), received a CID from the CFPB as part of an investigation regarding Pioneer’s activities relating to rehabilitation loans and collection of defaulted student debt. In May 2019, Pioneer received a similar CID from the New York Department of Financial Services (the “NY DFS”).

•

In December 2014, Solutions received a subpoena from the NY DFS as part of its inquiry with regard to whether persons or entities have engaged in fraud or misconduct with respect to a financial product or service under New York Financial Services Law or other laws.

In January 2017, the CFPB initiated a civil action naming Navient Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging violations of Federal and State consumer protection statutes, including the DFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws. The CFPB, Washington Attorney General and Illinois Attorney General lawsuits relate to matters which were covered under the CIDs or the NORA letter discussed above. In addition, various State Attorneys General have filed suits alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws covering matters similar to those covered by the CIDs or the NORA letter. As stated above, we have denied these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in each of these cases.

Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement between the Company and SLM BankCo, Navient has agreed to indemnify SLM BankCo for all claims, actions, damages, losses or expenses that may arise from the conduct of activities of pre-Spin-Off SLM BankCo occurring prior to the Spin-Off other than those specifically excluded in the Separation and Distribution Agreement. As a result, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in the Separation and Distribution Agreement, Navient has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless Sallie Mae and its subsidiaries, including Sallie Mae Bank from liabilities arising out of the regulatory matters and CFPB and State Attorneys General lawsuits mentioned above. Navient has asserted various claims for indemnification against Sallie Mae and Sallie Mae Bank for such specifically excluded items arising out of the CFPB and the State Attorneys General lawsuits if and to the extent any indemnified liabilities exist now or in the future. Navient has no additional reserves related to indemnification matters with SLM BankCo as of June 30, 2019.

The Office of the Inspector General (the “OIG”) of ED commenced an audit regarding Special Allowance Payments (“SAP”) on September 10, 2007. In September 2013, we received the final audit determination of Federal Student Aid (the “Final Audit Determination”) on the final audit report issued by the OIG in August 2009 related to this audit. The Final Audit Determination concurred with the final audit report issued by the OIG and instructed us to make adjustment to our government billing to reflect the policy determination. In August 2016, we filed our notice of appeal to the Administrative Actions and Appeals Service Group of ED, and a hearing was held in April 2017. In March 2019, the administrative law judge hearing the appeal affirmed the audit’s findings, holding the then-existing Dear Colleague letter relied upon by the Company and other industry participants was inconsistent with the statutory framework creating the SAP rules applicable to loans funded by certain types of debt obligations at issue. We have appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to the Secretary of Education given Navient’s adherence to ED-issued guidance and the potential impact on participants in any ED program student loan servicers if such guidance is deemed unreliable and may not be relied upon. We continue to believe that our SAP billing practices were proper, considering then-existing ED guidance and lack of applicable regulations. The Company established a reserve for this matter in 2014 and does not believe, at this time, that an adverse ruling would have a material effect on the Company as a whole.

As of June 30, 2018, we concluded that a contingency loss was no longer probable of occurring. Accordingly, the related $40 million contingency reserve was released as a reduction of operating expenses.

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are 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 are asserted against us and our subsidiaries. We and our subsidiaries are also subject to potential unasserted claims by third parties.

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are subject to regulatory examinations, information gathering requests, inquiries and investigations. In connection with formal and informal inquiries in these cases, we and our subsidiaries receive requests, subpoenas and orders for documents, testimony and information in connection with various aspects of our regulated activities.

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.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such litigation and regulatory matters, we cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing or the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss, fines or penalties, if any, related to each pending matter may be.

Based on current knowledge, reserves have been established for certain litigation, regulatory matters, and unasserted contract claims where the loss is both probable and estimable. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies, if any, arising from pending investigations, litigation or regulatory matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows, except as otherwise disclosed.