WASHINGTON — Several industry groups, as well as state regulators, argue, in friends of the court briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, that the lower court was correct in ruling that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) inappropriately designated MetLife as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI).
Besides making their own arguments, the briefs on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Investment Company Institute (ICI), the American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI) and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) all support the basic argument of MetLife in the case.
That argument is that the FSOC failed to “adhere to its own regulatory standards and the basic precepts of reasoned agency decision-making” in inappropriately designating MetLife as a SIFI.
All three briefs were filed Monday in MetLife v. FSOC, No. 16-5086, the government’s appeal of a decision by Judge Rosemary Collyer, a D.C. Circuit court judge, March 30 that declared the government’s decision as ‘arbitrary and capricious.’
MetLife submitted a reply brief to the government’s appeal on Aug. 15. The government’s reply brief is due Sept. 9.
In a memo filed with the court Aug. 18, the government asked for expedited handling of the case, with oral arguments scheduled for October. MetLife, in a memo filed with the court a day later, said it would support October oral arguments. In its memo to the court, the government asked for expedited action because Collyer’s decision “nullifies an important action that the nation’s financial regulators collectively took in response to a potential threat to U.S. financial stability.”
In their brief, the Chamber of Commerce and the ICI said Collyer “correctly set aside” the FSOC’s determination that MetLife is a SIFI because the FSOC committed “fundamental violations of established administrative law.”