Bibliographie sélective OHADA

A “global” civil procedure has emerged and found its way into debates over procedural reform in both international and domestic arenas. Global civil procedure includes the procedural rules, practices, and social understandings that govern transnational litigation and arbitration. A global civil procedure norm is a norm adopted across courts or arbitration providers with the purpose of making that jurisdiction or provider more competitive in attracting transnational litigation or arbitration. Global civil procedure norms are at stake in multiple present trends and debates, including model laws in commercial arbitration, the procedure of international tribunals, the debate over investment dispute resolution, the rise of courts oriented towards international litigation, and sprawling litigation spanning multiple jurisdictions and fora. On a surface level, the values reflected in global civil procedure seem to be roughly the same across jurisdictions. A common language has emerged around competition for litigation business and procedure values such as efficiency, certainty, and impartiality. Yet different legal systems do not necessarily agree on the purpose of various shared elements of global civil procedure. For democracies, for instance, the purpose of procedural reforms might be to facilitate access to justice. Other countries may favor the same reforms because they facilitate top-down administrative control of judges. Surface agreement can submerge divergent logics that may ultimately lead to very different applications of harmonized rules. This Article begins by introducing the concept of global civil procedure, who uses it, and how. Next, it considers several examples of the phenomenon including conflicts of interest rules for adjudicators, aggrega tion, and discovery or disclosure rules. Finally, it considers the limits of global civil procedure. Although the rhetoric of procedural competition can be heard across systems, procedural values do not necessarily translate both in terms of enduring divisions between legal traditions and in terms of applications by current political regimes.

This contribution considers the legislative regulation of the job security (which boils down to preservation of employment) of employees in case of financial distress of a company. It juxtaposes the legislative regulation of four interrelated processes a company may engage in where it finds itself in financial distress, namely a voluntary internal restructuring (especially retrenchment), the transfer of the business or part of the business, business rescue and winding up. The legislative endeavour to preserve the job security of employees in all these processes is described and analysed. The discussion shows that room exists for companies to circumvent this protection and, to the extent that the protection does apply, that it remains difficult for employees to ultimately challenge the substance of decisions negatively affecting their job security. The main protection for employees in all these processes is procedural in nature and to be found in their rights to be informed of and consulted prior to decisions negatively affecting them. In this regard, business rescue is the most employee-friendly process. Participation in this process by employees, however, requires a fine balance as it may be self-defeating and lead to winding up and the permanent loss of jobs.

Cet article propose d’évaluer l’impact des attributs du pouvoir discrétionnaire des dirigeants sur la performance financière de leur entreprise dans le cadre d’un pays doté d’un faible système de gouvernance, le Cameroun. L’analyse des résultats montre que le dirigeant qui mobilise ses compétences managériales spécifiques, investit dans des actifs ayant un lien avec ses connaissances ou encore cherche des soutiens au sein de son réseau relationnel obtient de meilleures performances que celui qui ne le fait pas. Seuls les dons aux administrateurs ont un effet négatif sur la performance financière. Toutefois, les dirigeants camerounais sont contraints dans leur pouvoir discrétionnaire par certains contre-pouvoirs, et le niveau d’endettement important de leur firme.

Las crisis económicas sufridas por la mayoría de los países industrializados han removido los cimientos del Derecho concursal, especialmente en lo que atañe a sus principios y funciones elementales. En este sentido, el aumento del volumen y de la complejidad de las estructuras empresariales ha incidido notablemente en las recientes reformas del Derecho concursal, las cuales han tratado de incentivar la función conservativa de los procedimientos concursales. El propósito de este artículo es analizar las dinámicas en la configuración de la función del Derecho concursal presentes en las recientes intervenciones legislativas llevadas a cabo por algunos países Europeos y Latinoamericanos. Para alcanzar dicho objetivo se sigue fundamentalmente un método analítico-descriptivo, a través del cual se justifica la relevancia interpretativa de la función del Derecho concursal, y se exponen las funciones tradicionales atribuidas a este sector del ordenamiento jurídico y el protagonismo de la función conservativa presente en las últimas reformas. A partir de ello, se realiza un análisis económico-funcional de esta tendencia, lo cual permite descubrir las tensiones existentes entre la función conservativa y la función solutoria. Desde esta perspectiva, se concluye sobre la necesidad de priorizar la finalidad solutoria de los procedimientos concursales, a pesar de la relevancia que actualmente se atribuye a la protección de la empresa en crisis mediante su saneamiento o rehabilitación. The financial crisis suffered by most of the industrialised have removed the foundations of bankruptcy law, especially as regards its elementary principles and functions. In this sense, the increase in the volume and complexity of business structures has had a notable impact on the recent reforms of bankruptcy law, which have tried to encourage the conservation function of bankruptcy proceedings. The purpose of this article is to analyze the dynamics in the configuration of the function of bankruptcy law present in the recent legislative interventions carried out by some European and Latin American countries. In order to achieve this objective, an analytical-descriptive method is basically used, through which the interpretative relevance of the function of bankruptcy law is justified, and it exposes the traditional functions attributed to bankruptcy law and the protagonism of the conservation function present in the latest bankruptcy reforms. From this, an economic-functional analysis of this trend is carried out, which allows to discover the tensions existing between the conservative function and the solution function of bankruptcy proceedings. From this perspective, we conclude on the need to prioritize the solution of bankruptcy proceedings, despite the relevance currently attributed to the protection of the company in difficulty through its reorganization or rehabilitation.

Les débats sur le comportement de financement de l’entreprise familiale ont tendance à se complexifier au fur et à mesure de leur occurrence. La diversité des résultats qui en découlent souvent en manque d’un consensus sur le détail et le caractère influent de ses facteurs constitutifs, en témoigne à suffisance. L’objectif de cet article est donc de mettre en lumière les facteurs d’incitation du financement par les dettes de ces entreprises dont les dirigeants sont souvent reconnus pour leur frilosité à l’égard de tout ce qui engendre la perte de propriété. L’approche hypothético-déductive et la procédure de tests d’homogénéité emboîtés sont mobilisées. Il se dégage des résultats obtenus que, la tangibilité de l’actif, le coût de la dette, la rentabilité économique et financière justifient le recours à l’endettement des entreprises familiales au Cameroun.

“It is a curious fact that the Americanization of international arbitration is a topic that is often felt but is rarely discussed.” Roger P. Alford Similar to Alford’s sentiments, the shift towards arbitration in the United States alone is a phenomenon often felt, but feebly interrogated. Law schools across the nation continue to operate under the premise of judicial decision-making grounded in “rights protection.”[1] Yet, there is a clear shift towards arbitration as the preferred procedural process, with over 303,999 cases resolved by way of arbitration in 2019 alone.[2] While this brief note does not seek to interrogate the shift towards arbitration as much as it intends to examine the impact of American arbitration on international commercial arbitration generally, that shift, as you will see, looms in the background of any and all analysis of arbitration in the United States. I will begin by briefly noting the origins- and current regime of international commercial arbitration in the United States so to address the impact of its arbitration law and arbitral institutions on arbitration globally. I will then offer thoughts on the prospective evolution of international arbitration in the United States and how that may change the directions of legal procedural processes both in the United States and abroad. I. ORIGINS- AND CURRENT REGIME OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE USA As arbitration flourishes as the choice for commercial disputes, there is no doubt that the United States has become a newfound hub for arbitration. It was not always this way, however. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) of 1925 established a steady road to an increasingly pro-arbitration policy, in three chapters, that shows itself in case-law as: when in doubt, favor arbitration.[3] The first chapter of the FAA establishes the framework for arbitration seated in the U.S. and provides the grounds for enforceable arbitration agreements and awards, while the second and third chapters implement the 1958 New York Convention and 1975 Panama Conventions, respectively. The strictly pro-arbitration policy does not lack in its own confusion, however, because of its basis in an otherwise federalist system. The FAA has largely remained unchanged since its nascence and has thus, left a substantive amount of discretion in interpreting arbitration law in the United States to the Supreme Court. One such source of confusion in U.S. arbitration law due to a lack of amendment lies in the term “arbitrability.” Arbitrability is the susceptibility of a case to be resolved by way of arbitration. In order to define the parameters of this susceptibility, the Supreme Court has distinguished between “procedural” and “substantive” arbitrability, wherein the former concerns itself with “prerequisites such as time limits, notices, laches, estoppel, and other conditions” and the latter, with a court’s decision.[4] The benefits to arbitration remain unmatched for commercial entities, however, which inspires the aforementioned pro-arbitration policy despite any real judicial framework. Arbitration allows parties to customize their dispute resolution by choosing the venue, applicable procedural law, and an expert adjudicator who may be more familiar with the intricacies of the dispute, among other benefits. There is a commitment to secrecy that is not found in the common court and the single, binding, and final resolution of a dispute through arbitration is the precise source of criticism that inspires the flock towards arbitration. Without the federal rules of civil procedure that would otherwise govern litigation, arbitration is governed by the procedural rules that each side agrees upon. The FAA paved the way for case law in the United States that would eventually shape a stronger pro-arbitration policy than ever—counseling against “even the mildest interference by courts in the conduct of U.S.-seated arbitrations.”[5] II. THE IMPACT OF U.S. ARBITRATION LAW AND U.S. ARBITRAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE WORLD OF ARBITRATION Assessing the impact of U.S. arbitration law begins by assessing what characterizes U.S. law: civil procedure. The adversarial form of litigation in which procedural tools are employed by advocates to advance arguments in a distinct style distinguishes the United States from other countries—and this feature inevitably slipped, in some capacity, into global arbitral institutions. Because the Rules of Arbitration for the International Chamber of Commerce are so brief,[6] American lawyers had tremendous flexibility in bringing American trial procedures with them. This came specifically in the form of document production for discovery and cross-examinations “to confront adverse witnesses.”[7] Critics refer to these added procedures as costly in both time and expense, defining them as the source of the “Americanization” of arbitration. Yet, while there is truth to such criticism, it may be more accurate to acknowledge the incorporation of aspects of American trial procedure as one country’s influence on arbitration. Far from inheriting solely American practice, global arbitral institutions maintain classic procedural tools while assimilating facets of each major country’s influence on arbitration.[8] III. THE PROSPECTIVE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE USA Apart from being a source of revenue,[9] international arbitration is the natural response to the increase in “trade, investment, and supply-chain relationships” that hope to live free of potential biases from domestic fora.[10] The California Supreme Court may have briefly lost sight of this when deciding Birbrower, wherein attorneys not admitted to the bar of a certain state are not only ineligible to recover attorney’s fee but also, may be fined for unauthorizing practice of law.[11] Since Birbrower over two decades ago, however, the California Legislature unanimously passed Senate Bill 766. Under SB 766, non-California lawyers are able to represent parties in international arbitration proceedings in California, bringing California to the arbitration table. As home to Silicon Valley – and even aside from big technology, home to some of the largest companies in the world – California’s SB 766 will bring a swath of arbitration proceedings to its terrain. While California may certainly work in tandem with New York as the home to arbitration for technology and privacy concerns, reserving trade and investment disputes for New York, California may very well be the next major hub of arbitration. Already, it has received massive interest in being an arbitration destination. SB 766 will transform that interest into a revenue. It thus becomes all the more important, internationally, to understand and confront the ways in which the Americanization of arbitration would take place. [1] See, e.g. Thomas E. Carbonneau, Revolution in Law Through Arbitration, The Eighty-Fourth Cleveland-Marshall Fund Visiting Scholar Lecture, 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 233, 233 n.3 (2008), available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol56/iss2/3 (“judicial decision-making has shifted from rights protection to guaranteeing access to some form of adjudication. As a result, law and adjudication have become less sacramental.”) [2] See American Arbitration Association, Adr.Org, https://adr.org/ (last visited Dec. 28, 2019). [3] See, e.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983) (“[A]ny doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration …”). [4] See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 85 (2002) (distinguishing between “issues of substantive arbitrability [which] are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits, notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, [which] are for the arbitrators to decide.”) (citations omitted). [5] See Laurence Shore, Tai-Heng Cheng, Jenelle E. La Chuisa, Lawrence Schaner, and Mara V.J Senn, International Arbitration in the United States 1, 320 (2018). [6] George M. von Mehrem and Alana C. Jochum, Is International Arbitration Becoming Too American?, 2 Global Bus. L. Rev. 47, 51 (2011) available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/gblr/vol2/iss1/6. [7] Id. [8] Philip J. McConnaughay, Introduction to International Commercial Arbitration in Asia 1, xxix (2002). In support of his assertion, McConnaughay reports that from 1995 to 2000, China’s leading international arbitration commission, CIETAC, received 4,200 new international commercial arbitrations and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) received 1,394, totaling 5,594. Id. Note: interrogatories and depositions are not included. [9] See ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), ICC Arbitration Figures Reveal New Record for Awards in 2018, https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-arbitration-figures-reveal-new-record-cases-awards-2018/. [10] Daily Journal, International Arbitration Finally Comes to California, Howard B. Miller, https://www.dailyjournal.com/mcle/330-international-arbitration-finally-comes-to-california. [11] See generally, Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 119 (1998).

La fabrication, l’utilisation et la vente aux États-Unis d’un produit couvert par un brevet américain, sans l’autorisation du breveté, constitue une contrefaçon de ce brevet. Toutefois, certains développements législatifs et des décisions de justice rendues ces dernières années ont montré que la portée d’un brevet américain pouvait être étendue à des activités se produisant en dehors du territoire américain. The unauthorized making use or sale within the United States of a product covered by a U.S. patent infringes the patent. However, in many cases damages and liability for infringing U.S. patents can extend beyond purely domestic uses to cover activities taking place far outside the United States. U.S. patents may cover activities that have little or nothing to do with the United States. Many companies are unaware of this surprisingly broad geographic reach. This article reviews such activities.

The Uniform Act related cooperative societies (UA-COOP) is the main source of cooperative law in all the seventeen States parties to the OHADA founding Treaty. Ten years after its entry into force (2011-2021), the aim of this study is to assess the level of enforcement of this Act. More concretely, the aim is to compare the state of cooperative law at the time of the entry into force of the UA-COOP (2011) with the current situation (in 2021). Such a comparison should make it possible to assess the contribution of the UA-COOP to the development of cooperative law and strengthening of national cooperative movements in the OHADA zone.

L'Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif révisé a considérablement amélioré la situation du débiteur à travers le renforcement des mesures de sauvetage et la légitimation du droit au rebond qui lui permet sous certaines conditions de bénéficier de la purge de ses dettes. Ce changement de paradigme devrait absolument tenir compte des intérêts des créanciers qui attendent désespérément le règlement de leurs créances. L’ambition de la présente étude est de démontrer que malgré le vent de la modernité, le législateur OHADA n’en a pas tenu compte dans la dernière réforme de la matière collective au vu de l’importance des ajustements qui profitent principalement au débiteur. Ce renforcement des mesures de protection en faveur d’un seul protagoniste n’augure pas des lendemains meilleurs dans un espace juridique où les États membres n’ont pas la culture, encore moins des possibilités de consentir facilement aux entreprises nécessiteuses, des crédits comparables à ceux régulièrement obtenus des créanciers.