MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Full case name | MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council |
| Docket nos. | 1:15-cv-00045 |
| Citation | 177 F. Supp. 3d 219 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent actions | 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 sitting | Rosemary 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]
