Bibliographie sélective OHADA

L'arbitrage étant une institution basée sur la volonté des parties, le consentement à la procédure arbitrale multipartite soulève de nombreuses questions relativement à la manière dont les parties expriment leur intention de faire partie d'une instance unique. Cette étude vise à déterminer les conditions dans lesquelles l'arbitre peut arriver à unifier la résolution des litiges qui impliquent les groupements de sociétés. Le plus naturel des moyens pour aboutir à une procédure multipartite est de prévoir cette possibilité à travers la convention d'arbitrage. Cela peut notamment provenir de la signature d'une convention d'arbitrage unique par toutes les parties concernées. Dans certains cas précis, l'arbitrage multipartite peut également résulter de plusieurs conventions d'arbitrage spécialement lorsque les parties participent à la réalisation d'un même ouvrage. Cependant, il arrive souvent qu'une partie qui n'a pas signé la convention d'arbitrage soit obligée à participer à l'instance. Même sans y être obligée, une partie non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage peut aussi demander de participer à l'arbitrage pour défendre ses intérêts. Pour pouvoir admettre la participation à la procédure d'un tiers non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage, les arbitres ont recours à plusieurs notions prévues par les droits internes. C'est ainsi que la levée du voile corporatif, la théorie de la réalité économique et le principe de l'estoppel constituent les meilleurs outils pour les arbitres d'amener à la procédure, par force ou sur demande, un non-signataire de la convention d'arbitrage. Enfin, les mécanismes du Code civil servent efficacement à neutraliser les effets du principe de relativité de la convention d'arbitrage. Il s'agit notamment de la bonne foi, du mandat, de la stipulation pour autrui et de la cession. Arbitration as an institution based on the intention of the parties, the consent on the multi-party arbitration procedure raises many problems relating to the way in which the parties express their intention to participate in a unique arbitration forum. This study aims to determinate the manner in which the arbitrator can join disputes resolution involving the groups of companies. The normal way to get a multi-party procedure is to provide it in an arbitration clause. This can be by signing a single arbitration agreement by all the parties involved. In certain cases, the multi-party arbitration can also be possible with several arbitration agreements especially when the parties took part in carrying out ofthe same economic operation. However, in other situations, the multi-party arbitration procedure is unrelated to consent. A non-signatory party can nevertheless be bound by an arbitration agreement signed by an other party. To allow the participation in the arbitration procedure of a third party non-signatory of the arbitration agreement, the arbitrators use several concepts provided chiefly by the national laws. 80, the lifting of the corporate veil, the doctrine of economic reality and estoppel, are the best tools for the arbitrators to bring to the arbitration procedure, by force or on request, a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement. Lastly, the mechanisms of the Civil code are used with efficiency by arbitrators to neutralize the effects of the relativity principle of the arbitration agreement. Those mechanisms are in particular the good faith, mandate, stipulation for another and assignment.

The research defines derivatives as private contracts, with future rights and obligations imposed on all parties, used to hedge or transfer risk, which derives value from an underlying asset price or index, which asset price or index may take on various forms. The nature of derivatives is that the instruments are intended to be risk management tools. The objectives of derivatives are either to hedge a risk, or to speculate. Derivatives may be classified by the manner in which they are traded, either over the counter (OTC) or on exchange. Alternatively, derivatives may be classified on the basis of structure and mechanisms, i.e. forwards, futures, options or swaps. Risk and risk management are defined in the third chapter with the focus on merchant banking. The nature of risk is that it is inherent in all activities. The nature of risk management is that it aims to ensure that the risks faced by the merchant bank are managed on a daily basis. The objective of risk management is to ensure that losses are minimised and the appropriate level of risk is taken in order to maximise profits. Risk may be classified as operational, operations, market, systemic, credit and legal risk. A comprehensive discussion of credit risk is presented, as it pertains to the legal risk in derivatives in a merchant bank. This includes insolvency, set-off, netting, credit derivatives and collateral. Legal risk is defined as the risk of loss primarily caused by legal unenforceability (i.e. a defective transaction, for instance a contract), legal liability (i.e. a claim) or failure to take legal steps to protect assets (e.g. intellectual property). The nature of legal risk is that it is caused by jurisdictional and other cross-border factors, inadequate documentation, the behaviour of financial institutions, a lack of internal controls, financial innovation or the inherent uncertainty of the law. The objectives of legal risk management in derivatives are to avoid the direct and indirect costs associated with legal risk materialising. This includes reputational damage. Derivatives attract specific legal risks due to the complexity of the instruments as well as the constant innovation in the market. There remains some legal uncertainty regarding derivatives in terms of gaming, wagering and gambling, as well as insurance. The relationship between risk and derivatives is that due to the complexity and constant innovation associated with derivatives, there are some inherent risks to trading in derivatives. It is therefore important to ensure that there is a vested risk management culture in the derivatives trading environment. Chapter four gives an overview of derivatives legislation in foreign jurisdictions and in South Africa. The contractual and documentation issues are discussed with reference to ad hoc agreements, master agreements and ISDA agreements. The practical implementation issues of master agreements and ad hoc agreements are also discussed. The recommendations are that legal risk management be approached in a similar manner to credit, market and other risk disciplines. A legal risk management policy needs to be developed and implemented. The second recommendation is that a derivative to manage the legal risk in derivatives be developed.