MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
CourtUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case nameMetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
Docket nos.1:15-cv-00045
Citation(s)177 F. Supp. 3d 219
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Motion 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(s) 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

  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.


Categories