title: Single point of entry doctrine in the United States as a form of corporate liability: Рossibilities of legal adoption in the Russian Federation
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Kobenia, Roman R.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2021-01-21T13:30:45Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2021-01-21T13:30:45Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-12
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Kobenia, Roman R. 2020. “Single point of entry doctrine in the United States as a form of corporate liability: Рossibilities of legal adoption in the Russian Federation”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 4: 1022–1034.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2020.412
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/22650
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: The article analyzes various aspects of the single point of entry bank resolution strategy in
  the United States and seeks to determine the viability of legally adopting this approach in
  the Russian Federation. The single point of entry strategy provides an alternative to “bailing
  out” large bank groups and bankruptcy proceedings via controlled liquidation of the
  parent company with simultaneous financial rehabilitation of the subsidiary bank. Orderly
  Liquidation Authority detailed by Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act provides a legislative
  framework for the single point of entry strategy, but due to the doctrine only existing as a
  guideline and not directly regulated by legislation, there are several gaps in legislation that
  cause various problems in both the practical implementation of the single point of entry
  doctrine and its scientific evaluation. The insufficiently studied topic of single point of entry
  doctrine as a form of corporate liability is also examined in the article. Russian legislation
  and court practices regarding bank rehabilitation and the doctrine of “piercing the corporate
  veil” are examined to determine the possibility of legally adopting the single point of entry
  doctrine due to similarities between doctrines. The flaws and merits of the single point of
  entry doctrine are studied while accounting for potential ways to overcome the legal gaps in
  the strategy. The article reaches the conclusion that while the single point of entry doctrine is
  far from perfect, the basic principles can be applied to Russian legislation and serve as a viable
  alternative to the prevalent “bailout” practice.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of St Petersburg University. Law;Volume 11; Issue 4
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: bankruptcy
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: single point of entry
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: bank rehabilitation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: vicarious liability
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: piercing the corporate veil
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Single point of entry doctrine in the United States as a form of corporate liability: Рossibilities of legal adoption in the Russian Federation
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 1021-1034.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/22650/1/1021-1034.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 668,76 kB