UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2010

or

For Transition period             

Commission File Number of depositor: 333-167097

CAPITAL ONE FUNDING, LLC

(Exact Name of Depositor as Specified in Its Charter)

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

(Exact Name of Sponsor as Specified in Its Charter)

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 the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part II of the Form 10-K or any amendment to this form 10-K.  x [Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not applicable.]

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

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

Registrant has no voting or non-voting common equity outstanding held by non-affiliates.

Documents Incorporated by Reference. See Item 15(b).

PART I

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

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not Applicable.

Substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB. Significant Obligors of Pool Assets (Financial Information).

The primary asset of the issuing entity is the collateral certificate, Series 2002-CC, representing an undivided interest in Capital One Master Trust, whose assets include the receivables arising in a portfolio of credit card accounts. Capital One Master Trust, therefore, may be considered a significant obligor in relation to Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust. Pursuant to Instruction 3.b. to Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the information required by Instruction J to Form 10-K in respect of Capital One Master Trust has been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K in lieu of the information otherwise contemplated by Item 1112(b).

The pool assets held by Capital One Master Trust do not include any significant obligors.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit Enhancement and Other Support, Except for Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain Derivatives Instruments (Financial Information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal Proceedings.

Litigation claims and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Below we provide a description of certain legal proceedings and claims.

The bank is a member of Visa U.S.A., Inc. (“Visa”). As a member, the bank has indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements of certain litigation against Visa. In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the “Interchange Lawsuits”) against Visa and MasterCard International (“MasterCard”) and several member banks, including the Corporation and its subsidiaries (including the bank), alleging among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. Fact and expert discovery have closed. The parties have briefed and presented oral argument on motions to dismiss and class certification and are awaiting decisions from the court.

In the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, the Corporation reduced its

Visa-related indemnification liabilities of $91 million recorded in other liabilities with a corresponding reduction of other non-interest expense. The Corporation made an election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 was zero. In January, 2011, the Corporation entered into a MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other defendant banks, which apportions any costs and liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against several issuing banks, including the Corporation (the “In Re Late Fees Litigation”). These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief. In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs’ appeal challenges the dismissal of their claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition Law, but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial institutions. In December 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an additional order continuing the stay of the matter pending the bankruptcy proceedings.

Between January and April 2010, eight substantially similar putative class actions were filed against the bank and Capital One Services, LLC (“COSL”) challenging various marketing practices relating to the bank’s payment protection product: Blackie v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); Carr v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey); McCoy v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California); Mitchell v. Capital One Bank, et. al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California); Salazar v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina); Smith v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas); Sullivan v. Capital One Bank, et al, (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut); Watlington v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina) (collectively “The Payment Protection Class Actions”). The Payment Protection Class Actions seek a range of remedies, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Each of these cases is in early stages. In addition, in September 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida certified a statewide class action in Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, et al. with respect to the marketing of the payment protection product in Florida. In May, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied the bank’s and COSL’s petition for interlocutory review of the class certification order, allowing the case to proceed toward the summary judgment stage. In May 2010, the bank and COSL entered into a preliminary global settlement with the various putative class counsel in The Payment Protection Class Actions. In August 2010, the Florida federal court issued a preliminary approval order for the settlement. After hearings in November and December, 2010, the Florida federal court issued a final approval order for the settlement. The Corporation believes the total expected costs of the settlement will be within the non-material litigation reserve amount established in the second quarter of 2010, and as a result, does not believe the amount necessary to resolve the litigation will be material to its financial conditions or results of operations.

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a dismissal entered in favor of the bank in Rubio v. Capital One Bank, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 2007. The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative class action that the bank breached its contractual obligations and violated the Truth In Lending Act (the “TILA”) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (the “UCL”) when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The District Court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss all claims as a matter of law prior to any discovery. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims, remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, finding that the bank was contractually allowed to increase interest rates. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the bank’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In January, 2011, the bank filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district Litigation matter involves similar issues as Rubio. This multi-district litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two pending putative class actions against the bank — Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D. Georgia). A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred into the MDL. On August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a putative class action that the bank breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The parties are currently conducting discovery.

In January 2010, the West Virginia Attorney General filed suit against the bank and various affiliates in Mason County, West Virginia, challenging numerous credit card practices under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The West Virginia Attorney General seeks injunctive relief, consumer refunds, statutory damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees. The bank removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In July 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia remanded the case back to Mason County Circuit Court and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. In August 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. In January 2011, the Court took our motion to dismiss under advisement, while permitting discovery to proceed.

In May 2010, the Corporation and the bank were named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges our practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. In May, 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.

Given the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, there is significant uncertainty as to the ultimate liability we may incur from these litigation matters and an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

In addition, the Corporation and its subsidiary banks (including the bank) are commonly subject to various pending and threatened legal actions relating to the conduct of their normal business activities. In the opinion of management, the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of all such other pending or threatened legal actions will not be material to the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or its results of operations.

PART II

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

Item 9B: Other Information.

None.

PART III

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

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.

Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.

Item 1122 of Regulation AB: Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria.

Each of the Bank, for itself and on behalf of its affiliate COSL, First Data Resources, Inc. and its affiliate REMITCO, LLC, Regulus Group, LLC, and The Bank of New York Mellon (each, a “Servicing Participant”) has been identified by the registrant as a party participating in the servicing function with respect to the pool assets held by each of Capital One Master Trust and Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust. Each Servicing Participant has completed a report on an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such Servicing Participant (each, a “Report on Assessment”) as of, and for the twelve month period ended, December 31, 2010, which Reports on Assessment are included as exhibits to this Form 10-K. In addition, each Servicing Participant has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by a registered independent public accounting firm regarding its related Report on Assessment. Each Attestation Report is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.

Vendors

A Servicing Participant may engage one or more vendors to perform specific and limited, or scripted activities that address all or a portion of one or more servicing criteria applicable to such Servicing Participant. In general in these cases, the Servicing Participant has instituted policies and procedures to monitor whether such vendors’ activities comply in all material respects with such servicing criteria, and may elect to take responsibility for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such vendors’ activities in such Servicing Participant’s Report on Assessment. Where the Servicing Participant has not instituted such policies and procedures, or where the Servicing Participant does not otherwise elect to take responsibility for assessing its vendors’ activities, the vendor is itself treated as a Servicing Participant and is required to provide its own Report on Assessment and related Attestation Report.

Exceptions

No Report on Assessment or related Attestation Report has identified (i) any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria identified in such Report on Assessment as applicable to the related Servicing Participant or (ii) any material deficiency in such Servicing Participant’s policies and procedures to monitor vendor compliance.

Platform-Level Reports

Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) require that each Servicing Participant complete a Report on Assessment at a “platform” level, meaning that the transactions covered by the Report on Assessment should include all asset-backed securities transactions involving such Servicing Participant that are backed by the same asset type. Further guidance from the SEC staff identifies additional parameters which a Servicing Participant may apply to define and further limit its platform. For example, a Servicing Participant may define its platform to include only transactions that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. Each Servicing Participant is responsible for defining its own platform, and each platform will naturally differ based on various factors, including the Servicing Participant’s business model, the transactions in which it is involved and the range of activities performed in those transactions.

Based on our understanding of their platforms and the guidance that is available at this time, we believe that the parameters by which the Servicing Participants have defined their platforms should be permissible. However, because the guidance available at this time is subject to clarification or change, we cannot assure you that the SEC and its staff will necessarily agree.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer Compliance Statement.

Each of the Bank, COSL and Capital One, N.A. has been identified by the registrant as a servicer meeting the criteria of Item 1108(a)(2)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation AB with respect to the pool assets held by each of Capital One Master Trust and Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust. Each of these servicers has provided a statement of compliance (a “Compliance Statement”), which has been signed by an authorized officer of such related servicer. Each Compliance Statement is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

SIGNATURES

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

EXHIBIT INDEX