Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings We and our subsidiaries and affiliates are subject to various claims, lawsuits and other actions that arise in the normal course of business. We believe that these claims, lawsuits and other actions will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, except as otherwise disclosed. Most of these matters are claims including individual and class action lawsuits against our servicing or business processing subsidiaries alleging the violation of state or federal laws in connection with servicing or collection activities on their education loans and other debts. In the ordinary course of our business, the Company and our subsidiaries and affiliates receive information and document requests and investigative demands from various entities including State Attorneys General, U.S. Attorneys, legislative committees, individual members of Congress and administrative agencies. These requests may be informational, regulatory or enforcement in nature and may relate to our business practices, the industries in which we operate, or companies with whom we conduct business. Generally, our practice has been and continues to be to cooperate with these bodies and to be responsive to any such requests. The number of these inquiries and the volume of related information demands continue to increase and therefore continue to increase the time, costs and resources we must dedicate to timely respond to these requests and may, depending on their outcome, result in payments of restitution, fines and penalties. Certain Cases 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. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants’ motion to dismiss. In July 2021, we filed a Motion for Summary judgement in the case. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018. In December 2019, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. In addition, 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. At this point in time, the Company is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that these legal proceedings discussed above 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. 9. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) 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. The Attorneys General for the States of California, Mississippi and, in October 2020, New Jersey have also initiated actions against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based upon similar alleged acts or failures to act. We refer to the Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, Mississippi and New Jersey 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, previously unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively against only one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have denied these allegations and are vigorously defending against the allegations in each of these cases. At this point in time, it is reasonably possible that a loss contingency exists; however, 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. Regulatory Matters In addition, Navient and its subsidiaries are subject to examination or regulation by various federal regulatory, state licensing or other regulatory agencies as part of its ordinary course of business including the SEC, CFPB, FFIEC and ED. 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. The Company subsequently received separate CIDs or subpoenas from the Attorneys General for the District of Columbia, Kansas, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Indiana that are similar to the CIDs or subpoenas that preceded the lawsuits referenced above. We have and, in the future, may receive additional CIDs or subpoenas and other inquiries from these or other Attorneys General with respect to similar or different matters. Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement between the Company and SLM BankCo, Navient agreed to indemnify SLM BankCo for 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 that agreement. Also, as part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, SLM BankCo agreed to indemnify Navient for certain claims, actions, damages, losses or expenses subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in that agreement. As a result, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in that agreement, Navient 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. In addition, we 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. We expect these various indemnification claims to be resolved at a future date as the cases move toward conclusion. Navient has no reserves related to indemnification matters with SLM BankCo as of June 30, 2021. 9. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued) OIG Audit 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 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. In January 2021, the Acting Secretary of Education upheld the decision of the administrative law judge. In March 2021, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in federal court seeking to set aside the Acting Secretary’s decision. We continue to believe that our SAP billing practices were proper, considering then-existing ED guidance and lack of applicable regulations. We filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Acting Secretary’s decision. That case is pending. The Company first established a reserve for this matter in 2014 and increased the reserve in 2020 in response to the decision by the Acting Secretary. We do not believe, at this time, that an adverse ruling will have a material effect on the Company as a whole. Contingencies 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 litigation and regulatory matters, we may not be able to 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We and our subsidiaries and affiliates are subject to various claims, lawsuits and other actions that arise in the normal course of business. We believe that these claims, lawsuits and other actions will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations, except as otherwise disclosed. Most of these matters are claims including individual and class action lawsuits against our servicing or business processing subsidiaries alleging the violation of state or federal laws in connection with servicing or collection activities on their education loans and other debts.

In the ordinary course of our business, the Company and our subsidiaries and affiliates receive information and document requests and investigative demands from various entities including State Attorneys General, U.S. Attorneys, legislative committees, individual members of Congress and administrative agencies. These requests may be informational, regulatory or enforcement in nature and may relate to our business practices, the industries in which we operate, or companies with whom we conduct business. Generally, our practice has been and continues to be to cooperate with these bodies and to be responsive to any such requests.

The number of these inquiries and the volume of related information demands continue to increase and therefore continue to increase the time, costs and resources we must dedicate to timely respond to these requests and may, depending on their outcome, result in payments of restitution, fines and penalties.

Certain Cases

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. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants’ motion to dismiss. In July 2021, we filed a Motion for Summary judgement in the case. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Additionally, two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018. In December 2019, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.

In addition, 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.

At this point in time, the Company is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that these legal proceedings discussed above 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.

9. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)

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. The Attorneys General for the States of California, Mississippi and, in October 2020, New Jersey have also initiated actions against the Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based upon similar alleged acts or failures to act. We refer to the Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, Mississippi and New Jersey 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, previously unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively against only one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have denied these allegations and are vigorously defending against the allegations in each of these cases. At this point in time, it is reasonably possible that a loss contingency exists; however, 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.

Regulatory Matters

In addition, Navient and its subsidiaries are subject to examination or regulation by various federal regulatory, state licensing or other regulatory agencies as part of its ordinary course of business including the SEC, CFPB, FFIEC and ED. 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. The Company subsequently received separate CIDs or subpoenas from the Attorneys General for the District of Columbia, Kansas, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, New York and Indiana that are similar to the CIDs or subpoenas that preceded the lawsuits referenced above. We have and, in the future, may receive additional CIDs or subpoenas and other inquiries from these or other Attorneys General with respect to similar or different matters.

Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement between the Company and SLM BankCo, Navient agreed to indemnify SLM BankCo for 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 that agreement. Also, as part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, SLM BankCo agreed to indemnify Navient for certain claims, actions, damages, losses or expenses subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in that agreement. As a result, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations set forth in that agreement, Navient 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. In addition, we 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. We expect these various indemnification claims to be resolved at a future date as the cases move toward conclusion. Navient has no reserves related to indemnification matters with SLM BankCo as of June 30, 2021.

9. Commitments and Contingencies (Continued)

OIG Audit

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 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. In January 2021, the Acting Secretary of Education upheld the decision of the administrative law judge. In March 2021, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in federal court seeking to set aside the Acting Secretary’s decision. We continue to believe that our SAP billing practices were proper, considering then-existing ED guidance and lack of applicable regulations. We filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Acting Secretary’s decision. That case is pending. The Company first established a reserve for this matter in 2014 and increased the reserve in 2020 in response to the decision by the Acting Secretary. We do not believe, at this time, that an adverse ruling will have a material effect on the Company as a whole.

Contingencies

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 litigation and regulatory matters, we may not be able to 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.