MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
| MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council | |
|---|---|
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
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
- ^ "MetLife Defeats U.S. Government's Too-Big-to-Fail Labeling". Bloomberg.com. March 30, 2016. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ^ MetLife Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, 177 F. Supp. 3d 219 (D.D.C. 2016).
- ^ "MetLife, U.S. regulators agree to set aside legal fight". Reuters. January 19, 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ^ "The Last SIFI: The Unwise and Illegal Deregulation of Prudential Financial". Stanford Law Review. December 17, 2018. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |