MetLife v. FSOC (Financial Stability Oversight Council)

MetLife v. FSOC (Financial Stability Oversight Council)

• FSOC - MetLife
• 2014 1218 - LC - MetLife v. FSOC - D85-2, 85-3 - 15-cv-45 - Explanation of the Basis of the Financial Stability Oversight Council's Final Determination that Material Financial Distress at MetLife Could Pose a Threat to U.S. Financial Stability and that MetLife Should be Supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Be Subject to Prudential Standards  ---   [BonkNote]   ---  387p
• FSOC - MetLife - Long-Term
• FSOC - MetLife - Run on the Bank
• MetLife v FSOC
• MetLife v FSOC - Amici Curiae Briefs
• MetLife v FSOC - Documents
• MetLife - FSOC - Implausible Scenario
• 2014 12 - re: FSOC SIFI Designation of MetLife, Woodall / Hamm - Views of the Council's Independent Member Having Insurance Expertise - 13p
• 2014 1218 - FSOC - MetLife - Basis for the Financial Stability Oversight Council's Final Determination Regarding Metlife, Inc - 31p
• 2015 1208 - GOV (House) - Oversight of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC)
• 2017 0328 - GOV (House) - The Arbitrary and Inconsistent Non-Bank SIFI Designation Process

• 15-cv-45 - LC - On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Case No. 1:15-CV-00045-RMC, Rosemary M. Collyer, Senior Judge
• 16-5086 -LC -  FSOC Appeal - MetLife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, No. 16-5086 (D.C. Cir. filed Apr. 20, 2016). - 77 F. Supp. 3d 219 (D.D.C. 2016)

• 4.3.5.3 Disincentives to General Account Surrenders (p169-179)
  • 1. Policyholder Surrenders
    • The error of MetLife's approach is epitomized by its treatment of the Council's conclusion that, in the event of MetLife's material financial distress, insurance policyholders could surrender their policies and demand cash.
    • MetLife contends that the Council did not "offer any response to MetLife's showing that it would be irrational for the average policyholder to terminate early because doing so could trigger penalties and taxes, and because a terminating policyholder might not be able to obtain replacement coverage." MetLife Br. 45.
    • But in an eight-page section of its analysis entitled "Disincentives to General Account Surrenders," the Council provided a point-by-point response to these arguments. Final Determination 167-75 [JA 529-37]; see also id. at 175-77 [JA 537-39] (analyzing historical evidence of policyholder surrenders)

USCA Case #16-5086 Document #1635077 Filed: 09/09/2016 Page 1 of 37 - REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT (FSOC) - 37p