Due to a previously-reported error, this story was updated at 10 a.m. EST on Aug. 16, 2016.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Financial Oversight Council failed to “adhere to its own regulatory standards and the basic precepts of reasoned agency decision-making” in inappropriately designating MetLife as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI), the company argued in a filing to an appeals court last night.
The brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as MetLife continued to seek to block the company’s designation as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI).
Related: MetLife defends its SIFI challenge
The brief was a reply to the appeal by the FSOC June 15 of a lower court decision that held that the FSOC designation of MetLife was arbitrary and capricious.
A ruling by Judge Rosemary Collyer on March 30 declared the government’s decision arbitrary and capricious, and had not taken into consideration the additional costs MetLife will bear as a SIFI, according to this latest filing.
The government is pushing for oral arguments in the case to be held in September, although no panel has yet been designated by the court to hear the case.
In its filing last night, MetLife said the district court simply required that FSOC adhere to its own regulatory standards and the basic precepts of reasoned agency decision-making.
Instead, the FSOC violated both the Dodd-Frank Act and fundamental principles of administrative law when it designated MetLife, MetLife argued in its brief.
“Having decided to target MetLife for designation, FSOC selectively applied the statutory criteria established by Congress, repeatedly departed from its own regulations in order to overcome MetLife’s evidence and analysis,” MetLife said in its reply brief.
Furthermore, the FSOC “consistently embraced unreasonable assumptions and counterfactual conjecture in the face of contrary historical examples,” MetLife said.