When is an international insurance company with a $50 billion market cap not systematically important?
According to a federal court ruling handed down today, the answer is "when that company is MetLife."
A federal judge overturned U.S. regulators’ determination that MetLife Inc. poses a threat to the financial system, granting the insurer a victory in its quest to avoid stricter rules and potentially undermining a central part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.
The ruling, which could be appealed by the government, gives the insurance company a reprieve from the decision it has been fighting for more than a year.
Avoiding Dodd-Frank will have the confetti falling and the Prosecco (champagne is for the SIFIs) corks a-popping over at the MetLife building, but how in the hell did one of the world's largest insurers convince a federal judge that they're not such a big deal?
Details of the court’s ruling weren't immediately available because U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her opinion under seal.
So it's a secret?
Judge Collyer issued a two-page court order saying she sided with MetLife on two counts of its legal complaint and partially sided with MetLife on a third count accusing the council of making unsubstantiated assumptions. It said she sided with MetLife on some, but not all, of its arguments. The order said the council’s final determination on MetLife was rescinded and that “judgment is entered in favor of MetLife.”
The judge indicated that a public version of the opinion, with possible redactions, would be released in the future. She ordered both sides to say by April 6 whether any portions of her ruling should remain under seal.
We love a mystery!
What could be in the decision that designates MetLife as a glorified Mom n' Pop? We'll take your guesses in the comments.