ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☑	Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025 or

☐	Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from to ___________

Commission File Number of issuing entity: 333-166301-09

Central Index Key of issuing entity: 0001556107

SLM STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2012-6

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-166301

Central Index Key of depositor: 0000949114

NAVIENT FUNDING, LLC

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key of sponsor: 0001601725

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

		04-3480392
DELAWARE		04-3480392 04-3480392 54-1843973
		04-3480392
DELAWARE		54-1843973
(State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification Nos.)

c/o Deutsche Bank Trust Company Delaware

111 Continental Drive, Suite 102

Newark, DE 19713

(Address of principal executive offices of issuing entity)

(~~703~~571) ~~984~~592-~~6890~~8608

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☑

Indicate by check mark if registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☑

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 ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulations S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☑ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐
Non-accelerated filer	☑	Smaller reporting company	☐
		Emerging growth company	☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☑

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Not applicable.

PART I

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 1.

Business

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

Item 1C.

Cybersecurity

Item 2.

Properties

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

Not Applicable.

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not Applicable.

The following information is substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB. Significant Obligor Financial Information

No single obligor represents more than 10% of the pool assets held by the Issuing Entity.

Items 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB. Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides external credit enhancement or other support with respect to payments on the notes issued by the Issuing Entity.

Items 1115(b) of Regulation AB. Credit Derivatives Instruments

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides derivative instruments with respect to payments on the notes issued by the Issuing Entity.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB. Legal Proceedings

Other than as stated in the following paragraphs, no legal proceedings are pending against the Issuing Entity, Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.) (“Navient Solutions”), as the Sponsor, the Servicer and the Administrator, Navient Funding, LLC, as the Depositor (the “Depositor”) and registrant under Registration Statement Number 333-190926 (the “Registrant”) or to the Registrant’s knowledge, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as the Indenture Trustee that are or would be material to the holders of the notes issued by the Issuing Entity, nor does the Registrant know of any such proceeding contemplated by any governmental authorities.

The following ~~three~~paragraph ~~paragraphs~~is ~~are~~ disclosure received from Navient Solutions, the servicer for this transaction.

Navient Corporation (“Navient”) has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action and other cases alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in adversarial proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code, and various state consumer protection laws. At this point in time, Navient is unable to anticipate the timing of a resolution or the impact that these legal proceedings may have on its 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 loss contingency accruals have not been established. It is possible that an adverse ruling or rulings may have a material adverse impact on Navient, Navient Solutions and/or their affiliates or on the financial ability of the depositor, the servicer or a seller to fulfill an obligation to purchase or repurchase trust student loans in connection with a breach of representation, warranty or covenant.

InThe ~~January~~following ~~2017,~~five ~~the~~paragraphs ~~Consumer~~are ~~Financial~~disclosure ~~Protection~~received ~~Bureau~~from ~~(the~~Deutsche ~~CFPB)~~Bank ~~and~~National ~~Attorneys~~Trust ~~General~~Company ~~for the State of Illinois and the State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient and several of its subsidiaries~~ (~~including Navient Solutions~~“DBNTC”) ~~as defendants alleging violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state consumer protection laws~~. DBNTC ~~The~~has Attorneys General for the States of Pennsylvania, California, Mississippi, and New Jersey also initiated actions against Navient and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various state and federal consumer protection laws based upon similar alleged acts or failures to act. In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been ~~filed~~sued by ~~nongovernmental~~investors ~~parties or,~~ in ~~the~~civil ~~future,~~litigation ~~may~~concerning betheir ~~filed by additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to similar issues raised~~role by as ~~the~~trustees ~~CFPB and the State Attorneys General. In January 2022, Navient entered into a series~~ of ~~Consent~~certain ~~Judgment~~residential ~~and~~mortgage-backed ~~Orders~~securities (~~the~~ “~~Agreements~~RMBS”) with 40 State Attorneys General to resolve all matters in dispute related to the State Attorneys General cases as well as the related investigations, subpoenas, civil investigative demands and inquiries from various other state regulatorstrusts.

~~Due~~In to2014 ~~developments~~and in2015, ~~the~~several ~~second~~investors ~~half~~sued ofseveral ~~2023~~trustees ~~and the first half~~ of ~~2024~~residential inmortgage-backed ~~connection~~securities ~~with~~(“RMBS”) ~~Navient’s CFPB matter~~trusts, ~~Navient~~including ~~concluded~~Deutsche aBank ~~loss~~National ~~was~~Trust ~~probable~~Company ~~and reasonably estimable. As of June 30~~(“DBNTC”), concerning ~~2024,~~ the ~~contingency loss~~trustees’ ~~liability~~administration ~~was $105 million (~~of ~~which~~RMBS ~~$3 million related to expected legal costs)~~trusts. ~~Navient~~These ~~reached~~cases angenerally ~~agreement~~alleged tothat ~~settle~~ the ~~CFPB~~RMBS ~~lawsuit~~trustees infailed ~~September~~to ~~2024. While~~perform ~~Navient~~purported ~~does not agree with the CFPB’s allegations~~duties, ~~this~~as ~~resolution~~trustees ~~is consistent~~for ~~with Navient’s go~~private-~~forward~~label ~~activities~~RMBS ~~and~~trusts, isto anenforce ~~important~~breaches ~~positive milestone in Navient’s transformation. As part~~ of ~~the~~representations ~~settlement,~~and ~~pursuant~~warranties as to ~~which~~mortgage ~~Navient~~loans ~~did~~held ~~not~~by ~~admit~~the totrusts ~~any~~and ~~wrongdoing, Navient agreed~~ to ~~pay~~enforce ~~$120~~breaches ~~million,~~by ~~which includes~~servicers aof ~~$100~~their ~~million~~mortgage ~~payment~~loan ~~that~~servicing ~~will~~obligations befor ~~used by~~ the ~~CFPB~~trusts. Investors tohave ~~make~~sued ~~payments~~DBNTC ~~to certain borrowers as determined by the CFPB,~~ in ~~addition~~nine toof athese ~~$20 million penalty~~cases. InDBNTC ~~light~~has ofsettled ~~the~~two ~~contingency~~cases ~~loss~~brought ~~liability~~by ~~established~~funds inmanaged ~~the amount of $105~~by ~~million~~ Blackrock ~~as of June 30~~Advisors, ~~2024~~LLC, ~~there was an additional $18 million of contingency expense recorded in third~~PIMCO-~~quarter~~Advisors, ~~2024~~L. ~~The~~P. ~~$120~~and ~~million~~others; ~~was~~settled ~~paid~~two ~~prior~~cases tobrought ~~September~~by ~~30,~~Royal ~~2024. The~~Park ~~settlement~~Investments ~~prohibits~~SA/NV; ~~Navient~~obtained ~~from~~summary ~~servicing~~judgment ~~federal student loans (other than~~ in ~~the~~one ~~role as master servicer of Navient’s FFELP Loan portfolio)~~case, ~~and~~brought ~~further~~by ~~prohibits~~certain ~~Navient~~special ~~from~~purpose ~~purchasing~~entities ~~any~~including ~~FFELP~~Phoenix ~~Loans~~Light inSF ~~the~~Limited; ~~future. These~~and obtained ~~restrictions are not expected to have~~ a ~~material~~dismissal ~~impact~~in onone ~~Navient’s~~case, ~~business~~brought ~~as Navient~~by ~~had already exited its Direct loan servicing contract with~~ the ~~Department~~Western ~~of Education in 2021,~~ and ~~entered~~Southern ~~into~~Life anInsurance ~~agreement~~Company ~~with~~and ~~MOHELA~~five torelated ~~service Navient’s FFELP Loan portfolio in May 2024~~entities. ItIn isaddition, ~~not anticipated that~~ the ~~other requirements~~three ofcases ~~the~~described ~~settlement~~below ~~will~~remain ~~impact Navient’s go-forward business plans or operations~~active.

~~The~~On ~~following~~November ~~five~~7, ~~paragraphs~~2014, ~~are~~the ~~disclosure~~National ~~received~~Credit ~~from~~Union ~~Deutsche~~Administration ~~Bank~~Board ~~National~~(“NCUA”), ~~Trust~~as ~~Company~~an ~~and~~investor ~~Deutsche~~in ~~Bank~~121 ~~Trust~~RMBS ~~Company~~trusts, ~~Americas~~filed a complaint in the U.S. ~~Deutsche~~District ~~Bank~~Court ~~National~~for the Southern District of New York against DBNTC as trustee of those trusts, alleging violations of the U.S. Trust ~~Company~~Indenture Act of 1939 (“~~DBNTC~~TIA”) and ~~Deutsche~~the ~~Bank Trust~~New ~~Company~~York ~~Americas~~Streit Act (“~~DBTCA~~Streit Act”) ~~have~~for ~~been~~DBNTC’s ~~sued~~alleged byfailure ~~investors~~to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties. On March 5, 2015, NCUA amended its complaint to assert claims as an investor in ~~civil~~97 ~~litigation~~of ~~concerning~~the ~~their~~121 ~~role~~RMBS trusts that were the subject of its first complaint. The amended complaint alleged violations of the TIA and Streit Act, as well ~~trustees~~as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith, negligence, gross negligence and negligent misrepresentation. NCUA’s complaint alleged that the trusts at issue suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $17.2 billion, but the complaint did not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. ~~residential~~On ~~mortgage-backed~~May ~~securities~~1, 2015, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 31, 2018, the court issued an order that, among other things, denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to its renewal. On August 31, 2018, NCUA filed a letter informing the court that it intended to: (“i) drop all of its claims as to 60 of the 97 trusts at issue; (ii) drop its claims as to certain, but not all, certificates for 3 additional trusts; and (iii) move for leave to file an amended complaint bringing claims as to the remaining 37 trusts at issue. On October 5, 2018, NCUA filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that asserted claims as to only 37 of the 97 trusts that were originally at issue, and added new claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in NCUA’s action and in other actions brought by investors against DBNTC for alleged breaches of its duties as an RMBS” trustee. On November 5, 2018, DBNTC filed a motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. On October 15, 2019, the court: (i) granted in part NCUA’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; and (ii) granted DBNTC’s motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. The court permitted NCUA to file a second amended complaint asserting claims for: (i) breach of contract arising out of DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties; and (ii) declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses. The court denied NCUA’s request to assert additional claims for: (i) negligence and gross negligence; and (ii) breach of fiduciary duty. On October 21, 2019, NCUA filed a second amended complaint. On November 15, 2019, DBNTC filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On June 11, 2021, NCUA filed a third amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the second amended complaint. On July 1, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On October 5, 2021, NCUA filed a fourth amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the third amended complaint. On October 25, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the fourth amended complaint. On February 4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation in which NCUA agreed to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims as to 19 trusts. On February 28, 2022, both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment. On August 15, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part both motions, and on October 9, 2025, the court entered the parties’ stipulation dismissing certain additional claims based on the summary judgment decision. Discovery is ongoing.

In 2014 and 2015, several investors sued several trustees of RMBS trusts including DBNTC and DBTCA, concerning the trustees’ administration of RMBS trusts. These cases generally alleged that the RMBS trustees failed to perform the purported duties, as trustees for private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. Investors have sued DBNTC in nine of these cases and DBTCA in six of these cases. DBNTC has settled two cases brought by funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others; settled two cases brought by Royal Park Investments SA/NV; obtained summary judgement in one case, brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited; and obtained a dismissal in one case, brought by the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and five related entities. In addition, the three cases described below remain active. DBTCA has settled two cases brought by funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, L.L.C., PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others; and obtained summary judgment in one case, brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited. In addition, the two cases described below remain active.

On November 7, 2014, the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”), as an investor in 121 RMBS trusts, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against DBNTC as trustee of those trusts, alleging violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”) and the New York Streit Act (“Streit Act”) for DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties. On March 5, 2015, NCUA amended its complaint to assert claims as an investor in 97 of the 121 RMBS trusts that were the subject of its first complaint. The amended complaint alleged violations of the TIA and Streit Act, as well as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith, negligence, gross negligence and negligent misrepresentation. NCUA’s complaint alleged that the trusts at issue suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $17.2 billion, but the complaint did not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On May 1, 2015, DBNTC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 31, 2018, the court issued an order that, among other things, denied DBNTC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to its renewal. On August 31, 2018, NCUA filed a letter informing the court that it intended to: (i) drop all of its claims as to 60 of the 97 trusts at issue; (ii) drop its claims as to certain, but not all, certificates for 3 additional trusts; and (iii) move for leave to file an amended complaint bringing claims as to the remaining 37 trusts at issue. On October 5, 2018, NCUA filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that asserted claims as to only 37 of the 97 trusts that were originally at issue, and added new claims for a declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses in NCUA’s action and in other actions brought by investors against DBNTC for alleged breaches of its duties as an RMBS trustee. On November 5, 2018, DBNTC filed a motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. On October 15, 2019, the court: (i) granted in part NCUA’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; and (ii) granted DBNTC’s motion to stay NCUA’s new claims relating to payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses and all related discovery. The court permitted NCUA to file a second amended complaint asserting claims for: (i) breach of contract arising out of DBNTC’s alleged failure to perform certain purported statutory and contractual duties; and (ii) declaratory judgment and breach of contract arising out of the payment from trust funds of DBNTC’s legal fees and expenses. The court denied NCUA’s request to assert additional claims for: (i) negligence and gross negligence; and (ii) breach of fiduciary duty. On October 21, 2019, NCUA filed a second amended complaint. On November 15, 2019, DBNTC filed an answer to the second amended complaint. On June 11, 2021, NCUA filed a third amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the second amended complaint. On July 1, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the third amended complaint. On October 5, 2021, NCUA filed a fourth amended complaint, the substance of which was unchanged from the third amended complaint. On October 25, 2021, DBNTC filed an answer to the fourth amended complaint. On February 4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation in which NCUA agreed to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims as to 19 trusts. On February 28, 2022, both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment, which have been fully briefed. Discovery is ongoing.

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 Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“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. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. On September 26, 2024, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. On January 27, 2021, 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 IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. On November 14, 2024, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on November 14, 2024, IKB filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On August 11, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part certain aspects of both motions. On October 20, 2025, the court resolved the remainder of both motions and dismissed certain additional claims. All parties have filed notices of appeal with respect to certain aspects of the court’s summary judgment orders.

OnIt ~~December~~is 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. On January 27, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s ~~motion~~belief to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that ~~order. On~~it ~~August~~has ~~30,~~no ~~2022,~~pending ~~the~~legal ~~New~~proceedings ~~York Supreme Court~~(including, ~~Appellate~~based ~~Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order~~ on ~~the motion to dismiss. After~~ DBNTC ~~and DBTCA appealed the First Department~~’s ~~decision,~~current ~~on June 15~~evaluation, ~~2023,~~ the ~~New~~litigation ~~York~~disclosed ~~Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision~~ in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the ~~court’s~~foregoing ~~order~~paragraphs) onthat ~~the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA~~would ~~filed~~ materially anaffect ~~answer~~its toability ~~the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as~~ to ~~seven~~perform ~~additional~~its ~~trusts. On~~duties ~~December~~under ~~29, 2021,~~ the ~~parties~~Indenture filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. On November 14, 2024, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for ~~summary~~this ~~judgment~~transaction. ~~Also on November 14, 2024, IKB filed a motion for summary judgment. Those motions are being briefed.~~

ItThe isfollowing ~~DBTCA’s~~four ~~and~~paragraphs ~~DBNTC’s~~are ~~belief~~disclosure ~~that~~received ~~they~~from ~~have~~Deutsche noBank ~~pending~~Trust ~~legal~~Company ~~proceedings,~~Americas ~~including, based on~~ (“DBTCA’s”). DBTCA ~~and~~has ~~DBNTC’s~~been ~~current~~sued ~~evaluation,~~by ~~the~~investors ~~litigation disclosed~~ in ~~the~~civil ~~immediately~~litigation ~~preceding~~concerning ~~paragraphs that would materially affect~~ their ~~ability~~role as totrustees ~~perform~~of ~~their~~certain ~~duties~~residential ~~under~~mortgage-backed ~~the~~securities ~~Indenture~~(“RMBS”) ~~for this transaction~~trusts.

In 2014 and 2015, several investors sued several trustees of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) trusts, including Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”), concerning the trustees’ administration of RMBS trusts. These cases generally alleged that the RMBS trustees failed to perform purported duties, as trustees for private-label RMBS trusts, to enforce breaches of representations and warranties as to mortgage loans held by the trusts and to enforce breaches by servicers of their mortgage loan servicing obligations for the trusts. Investors have sued DBTCA in six of these cases. DBTCA has settled two cases brought by funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P. and others; and obtained summary judgment in one case, brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited. In addition, the two cases described below remain active.

On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previously alleged incorrectly that Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) served as trustee for all 50 of the trusts at issue. 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 U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”); breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the New York Streit Act (“Streit Act”); and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s 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. On December 7, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on December 7, 2018, Commerzbank, jointly with the Phoenix Light plaintiffs, filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On February 8, 2022, the court issued an order in which it granted in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of that order, many of plaintiffs’ claims and theories were dismissed with prejudice. On September 26, 2024, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully briefed.

~~PART~~On IIDecember 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of the Streit Act, violation of the TIA, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. On January 27, 2021, 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 IKB’s claims for violations of the Streit Act, Regulation AB, and Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, as well as certain aspects of IKB’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the TIA. The court denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. IKB’s remaining claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and violation of the TIA will proceed. On May 10, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2021, IKB filed a notice of cross appeal with respect to other aspects of that order. On August 30, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the court’s order on the motion to dismiss. After DBNTC and DBTCA appealed the First Department’s decision, on June 15, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the First Department’s decision in part, dismissing certain additional contract claims, as well as IKB’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. On June 2, 2021, IKB filed a motion for re-argument regarding certain aspects of the court’s order on the motion to dismiss, which the court denied on August 3, 2021. On May 13, 2021, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the complaint. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to seven additional trusts. On December 29, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to one additional trust. On April 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to 17 certificates at issue, including all claims as to 5 trusts. On February 28, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to two trusts, leaving 15 trusts at issue. On November 21, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts, leaving 12 trusts at issue. On November 14, 2024, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion for summary judgment. Also on November 14, 2024, IKB filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On August 11, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part certain aspects of both motions. On October 20, 2025, the court resolved the remainder of both motions and dismissed certain additional claims. All parties have filed notices of appeal with respect to certain aspects of the court’s summary judgment orders.

~~The~~It ~~following~~is ~~Items~~DBTCA’s ~~have~~belief ~~been~~that ~~omitted~~it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s current evaluation, the litigation disclosed in ~~accordance~~the ~~with~~foregoing ~~General~~paragraphs) ~~Instruction~~that Jwould materially affect its ability to ~~Form~~perform ~~10–K:~~its duties under the Indenture for this transaction.

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Item 9B. Other Information

Nothing to report.

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections.

Not applicable.

PART III

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

Item 10.

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

Item 11.

Executive Compensation

Item 12.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

Item 13.

Certain Relationships, Related Transactions, and Director Independence

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

The following information is substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10-K:

Item 1119 of Regulation AB. Affiliations and Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

Pursuant to the Instruction to Item 1119 of Regulation AB, information required by Item 1119 has been omitted from this Report because substantially the same information related to affiliates of the Issuing Entity and certain relationships and related transactions is provided in the section titled “The Sponsor, Servicer and Administrator” of the base prospectus, previously filed with the SEC on September 13, 2012 pursuant to Securities Act Rule 424, file number 333-166301.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB. Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria

Navient Solutions, LLC, as the Servicer, Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, as the Subservicer, Navient Solutions, LLC, as the Administrator and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as the Indenture Trustee (collectively, the “Servicing Parties”) have each been identified by the Depositor as parties participating in the servicing function with respect to the asset pool held by the Issuing Entity. Each of the Servicing Parties has completed a report on assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it (each a “Servicing Report”), which Servicing Reports are attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. Each of the Servicing Parties ~~have~~ has provided an attestation report (each an “Attestation Report”) by one or more public accounting firms, which reports are also attached as exhibits to this Report. None of the Servicing Reports or Attestation Reports has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria as applicable to the respective Servicing Party. There have been no material instances of noncompliance with the servicing criteria for the period of this Report.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB. Servicer Compliance Statement

A Servicer Compliance Statement for each of Navient Solutions, LLC, as Servicer, and Navient Solutions, LLC, as Administrator, and Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, as Subservicer, is included as an exhibit to this Report.

PART IV

Item 15.

Exhibit and Financial Statement Schedules

(a)

List of Documents Filed as Part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K

(1)

Not applicable.

(2)

Not applicable.

(3)

See Item 15 (b) below.

(b)

Exhibits Required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION
4.1	Indenture dated as of September 20, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as eligible lender trustee, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on September 20, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-09.
10.1	Indenture dated as of September 20, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as eligible lender trustee, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 4.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on September 20, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-09.
10.2	Servicing Agreement dated as of September 20, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as eligible lender trustee, and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as servicer and as administrator, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 99.8 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on September 20, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-09.
10.3	Administration Agreement dated as of September 20, 2012 among SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as eligible lender trustee, Navient Funding, LLC, as depositor, and Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as servicer and as administrator, which is incorporated by reference from Exhibit 99.7 of the Current Report on Form 8-K of the registrant, as filed with the Commission on September 20, 2012, with a file number of 333-166301-09.
31.1*	Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification (Section 302 Certification).
33.1*	Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria concerning servicing activities of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator, as of and for the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
33.2*	Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria concerning servicing activities of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, as of and for the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
33.3*	Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria concerning servicing activities of Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, as Subservicer, as of and for the ~~period~~year ~~from~~ended ~~July 1, 2024 to~~ December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
34.1*	Independent Accountants’ Attestation Report concerning servicing activities of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator, as of and for the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
34.2*	Independent Accountants’ Attestation Report concerning servicing activities of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture Trustee, as of and for the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
34.3*	Independent Accountants’ Attestation Report concerning servicing activities of Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, as of and for the ~~period~~year ~~from~~ended ~~July 1, 2024 to~~ December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
35.1*	Statement of Compliance of Navient Solutions, LLC (formerly, Navient Solutions, Inc.), as Servicer and Administrator, for the year ended December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
35.2*	Statement of Compliance of Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, as Subservicer, for the ~~period~~year ~~from~~ended ~~July 1, 2024 to~~ December 31, ~~2024~~2025.
	* Filed herewith.

(c)

Not Applicable.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed, on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: March 31, 2025	NAVIENT FUNDING, LLC, the Depositor for itself as Registrant and on behalf of SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6
Dated: March 27, 2026	NAVIENT FUNDING, LLC, the Depositor for itself as Registrant and on behalf of SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6
	By:	/s/ ~~JOE~~STEVE ~~FISHER~~HAUBER
		Name:	Steve Hauber
		Title:	President and Chief Financial Officer
			(Senior Securitization Officer)

Name: Joe Fisher Title: President and Chief Financial Officer (Senior Securitization Officer)

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED WITH REPORTS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE ACT BY REGISTRANTS WHICH HAVE NOT REGISTERED SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE ACT.

No annual report, proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy soliciting material has been sent to holders of the notes issued by the Issuing Entity during the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Registrant does not intend to furnish such materials subsequent to the filing of the report.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

* Filed herewith.

Filing Compare · SLM Student Loan Trust 2012-6