UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2018

OR

For the transition period from                to              

333-183223-11

(Commission File Number of issuing entity)

Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust

(Exact name of issuing entity specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001641204

333-183223
(Commission File Number of depositor)

American Honda Receivables LLC

(Exact name of depositor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of depositor: 0000890975

American Honda Finance Corporation

(Exact name of sponsor as specified in its charter)

Central Index Key Number of sponsor: 0000864270

(310) 972-2511

(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 the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    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   ☐     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 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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).     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 III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, 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.     (Check one):

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 Exchange Act.     ☐

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

Registrant has no voting or non-voting class of common equity outstanding and held by nonaffiliates as of the date of this report, or as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

PART I

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

Not applicable

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).

No single obligor represents more than 10% of the pool assets held by Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust (the “Trust”).

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

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any external credit enhancement or other support with respect to either payment on the pool assets held by the Trust or payments on the notes (the “Notes”) or certificates (the “Certificates”) issued by the Trust.

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

No entity or group of affiliated entities provides any derivative instruments that are used to alter the payment characteristics of the cashflows from the Trust.

Item 1117 of Regulation AB.    Legal Proceedings.

No legal proceedings are pending, and no proceedings are known to be contemplated by governmental authorities, against any of the following companies: American Honda Finance Corporation (the “Sponsor”), American Honda Receivables LLC (the “Depositor”), MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (the “Owner Trustee”), or the Trust, or of which any property of the foregoing is the subject, that are or would be material to holders of the Notes or the Certificates.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the “Indenture Trustee”) has provided the information contained in the following paragraphs for purposes of compliance with Regulation AB.  

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain RMBS trusts.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as

- 2 -

trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss.  On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.   The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed.  On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  As of April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.  On April 6, 2018, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Sealink Funding Limited and ordered that Sealink’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.  On April 24, 2018, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation to dismiss the claims of Kore Advisors, LP and ordered that Kore’s claims be dismissed with prejudice.  Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.  On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action.  On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint.  On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  As of April 30, 2018, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. Discovery is ongoing.

On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issue.  On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC.  DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts at issue.  DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue.  Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence;

- 3 -

violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith.  However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal.  Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.”  On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.

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 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 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, 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.  Discovery is ongoing.

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 New York’s Streit Act, violation of the Trust Indenture Act, 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.  As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court.  On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts.  Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.

It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties as Trustee under the May 20, 2015 Indenture for Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust.

U.S. Bank Trust National Association (the “Delaware Trustee”) has provided the information contained in the following paragraphs for purposes of compliance with Regulation AB.

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.  The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees.  The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality.  The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default.  

- 4 -

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described above with the most substantial case being:  BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 770 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.).  Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

U.S. Bank cannot assure you as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs’ claims vigorously.

PART II

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

Item 9B.Other Information.

Not applicable.

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

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

The Sponsor (in its role as servicer) and the Indenture Trustee (together, the “Servicing Parties”) have each been identified by the registrant as a party participating in the servicing function with respect to the asset pool held by the Trust.  Each of the Servicing Parties has completed a report on an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it (each, a “Servicing Report”), which Servicing

- 5 -

Reports are attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K.  In addition, each of the Servicing Parties has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by one or more registered public accounting firms, which Attestation Reports are also attached as exhibits to this Form 10-K. Neither of the Servicing Reports prepared by the Sponsor or the Indenture Trustee, or the Attestation Reports provided by the Sponsor or the Indenture Trustee, has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the respective Servicing Party.  

Item 1123 of Regulation AB.    Servicer Compliance Statement.

The Sponsor (in its role as servicer) has been identified by the registrant as a servicer with respect to the asset pool held by the Trust.  The Sponsor has completed a statement of compliance with applicable servicing criteria (a “Compliance Statement”), signed by an authorized officer of the Sponsor.  The Compliance Statement is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K.

PART IV

(a)(1)Not applicable.

(a)(2)Not applicable.

(a)(3)The exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in Item 15(b) below.

(b)Exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

The exhibits listed below are either included or incorporated by reference as indicated:

- 6 -

(c)Not applicable.

- 7 -

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 hereunto duly authorized.

- 8 -

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 to security holders, proxy statement, form of proxy or other proxy soliciting material has been sent to security holders or is anticipated to be furnished to security holders subsequent to the filing of this annual report on Form 10-K.

- 9 -