Jump to content

MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
CourtUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case name MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
Docket nos.1:15-cv-00045
Citation177 F. Supp. 3d 219
Case history
Subsequent actionsMotion to unseal denied, 2016 WL 3024015 (D.D.C. May 25, 2016); reversed and remanded, 865 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Court membership
Judge sittingRosemary M. Collyer

MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, 177 F. Supp. 3d 219 (D.D.C. 2016), is a case that challenged the systemically important financial institution, or SIFI rules in Dodd-Frank. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that MetLife could shed its SIFI designation, after concluding Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC's designation was "arbitrary and capricious".[1][2][3] FSOC subsequently launched an appeal but decided to settle the case in January 2018 during the Trump administration, ensuring that MetLife would not face stricter rules.[4] This had the effect of releasing nearly all non-bank SIFI organizations that were under Dodd-Frank at the time, prior to the deregulation of Prudential Financial.[5]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "MetLife Defeats U.S. Government's Too-Big-to-Fail Labeling". Bloomberg.com. March 30, 2016. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
  2. ^ Holm, Ryan Tracy and Erik (March 30, 2016). "MetLife Wins Bid to Shed 'Systemically Important' Label". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
  3. ^ MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, 177 F. Supp. 3d 219 (D.D.C. 2016).
  4. ^ "MetLife, U.S. regulators agree to set aside legal fight". Reuters. January 19, 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
  5. ^ "The Last SIFI: The Unwise and Illegal Deregulation of Prudential Financial". Stanford Law Review. December 17, 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2022.