MetLife, Inc. Victorious In Its Challenge To Its Designation As A Systemically Important Financial Institution

SS
Shearman & Sterling LLP

Contributor

Our success is built on our clients’ success. We have a long and distinguished history of supporting our clients wherever they do business, from major financial centers to emerging and growth markets. We represent many of the world’s leading corporations and major financial institutions, as well as emerging growth companies, governments and state-owned enterprises, often working on ground-breaking, precedent-setting matters. With a deep understanding of our clients' businesses and the industries they operate in, our work is driven by their need for outstanding legal and commercial advice.
On March 30, 2016, a federal judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order rescinding a December 2014 designation by the US Financial Stability Oversight Council of Metlife, Inc...
United States Finance and Banking

On March 30, 2016, a federal judge in the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order rescinding a December 2014 designation by the US Financial Stability Oversight Council of Metlife, Inc., as systemically important. The FSOC's determination would subject MetLife, a global systemically important insurer as identified by the Financial Stability Board and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, to consolidated supervision by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, including minimum capital and other enhanced prudential standards. The authority of FSOC to designate nonbank financial institutions for supervision by the Federal Reserve Board was a key part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Other US insurance companies designated by FSOC include Prudential Financial, Inc. and American International Group, Inc., which did not challenge their designations. The court's opinion accompanying the order, which is subject to appeal, is not yet public. Accordingly, the reasoning underlying the court's action is not yet public. The court instructed the parties to file a notice by April 6 stating whether any portions of the opinion should remain under seal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More