WASHINGTON – The public advocacy group Better Markets is calling on a federal court to explain why it has decided to seal an opinion, delivered Wednesday, that struck down MetLife's designation as a systemically risky nonbank.
The motion, which updates a similar motion asking parties in the suit to demonstrate the reasoning behind the court's decision to seal MetLife's motion for summary judgment, calls on the court to require parties in the suit to demonstrate "why the record, briefing, and opinion in this action should not be unsealed." MetLife brought the suit against the Financial Stability Oversight Council, an interagency panel tasked with identifying systemically risky nonbanks.
Better Markets, which has filed an amicus brief in support of the FSOC and filed as an intervenor in the suit for the purposes of unsealing the record, has frequently criticized the proceedings of the case for being too secretive. Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, said in a statement Thursday that the suit is too consequential for substantial portions of the record – including Wednesday's ruling – to remain unavailable to the public.
-
The DC District Court handed the insurance giant MetLife a big upset win when it struck down the Financial Stability Oversight Councils decision to apply a systemically risky label to the firm, but with few other firms facing similar designation, the practical impact of the ruling is uncertain.
March 30 -
While the courts generally accord deference to regulators, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the D.C. District Court appeared highly skeptical of the Financial Stability Oversight Council's case during the first round of oral arguments on Wednesday.
February 10 -
The conventional wisdom is that MetLife is breaking itself up partly as a response to its designation as a systemically important company. But there is significant evidence that's wrong here's why.
January 13
"MetLife's lawsuit to effectively gut the FSOC's ability to do its enormously important job has been shrouded in secrecy because more than two-thirds of the record has been filed under seal and is unavailable to the public. And now the court's decision, overturning FSOC's designation, is also under seal," Kelleher said.
The court's Wednesday order called the parties in for a hearing on April 6 to discuss terms of releasing a redacted or partially redacted version of the order.
