Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Pendant très longtemps, le statut de commerçant sur le domaine public n’avait pas profondément évolué. La raison principale est qu’il y avait une antinomie entre le régime de la domanialité publique et les règles protectrices qui fondent le statut de commerçant en droit commercial. Par conséquent, ce régime faisait obstacle à toutes les évolutions. De par son effet, le commerçant ne pouvait par exemple pas exploiter son fonds de commerce sur le domaine public, ni non plus bénéficier de la législation sur les baux commerciaux. Aussi, en cas de faillite, les règles dérogatoires issues des procédures collectives dont bénéficient le commerçant sont altérées par ledit régime. De surcroît, le principe de la liberté du commerce et de l’industrie qui garantie l’activité commerciale est mise à mal par les restrictions du commerce non-sédentaire sur le domaine public.Constatant que cette situation constitue une insécurité juridique pour le commerçant sur le domaine public, le législateur a réagit par la loi n°2014-626 du 18 juin 2014, dite Loi Pinel, en autorisant le fonds de commerce sur le domaine public. Si cette évolution législative permet a priori de sécuriser les droits du commerçant sur le domaine public, il faudra en même temps retenir qu’elle est insuffisante, au regard des difficultés rencontrées par le commerçant sur le domaine public. L’ambition de cette thèse, est de contribuer à l’aboutissement des évolutions déjà amorcées par le législateur, en proposant l’extension des droits du commerçant en vue de parfaire le processus de valorisation économique du domaine public.

Post-commencement financiers provide a lifeline to companies under business rescue and these financiers have their best interest in the survival of these companies. Should it be that the business rescue plan is unsuccessful, the chances are that the post commencement financiers will be the largest creditors. In Wescoal Mining (Pty) Ltd v Mkhombo NO, a dispute arose regarding the appropriate adoption of a business rescue plan during the meeting. One critical legal issue was whether the Companies Act bestows voting rights exclusively to the company's creditors who existed at the initiation of business rescue, or if creditors accruing after the commencement may also partake in voting on the plan. Following an assessment by Judge Wilson, it was established that only creditors with claims predating the commencement were eligible to participate in the voting process. Subsequently, Judge Wilson believed that section 135 of the Companies Act places post-commencement financiers as creditors in a different class and provides for their protection and interests in a different way. Against this background, the dissertation evaluates the position of post-commencement creditors when it comes to voting on a business rescue plan.

Le droit de l’environnement et le droit des entreprises en difficulté sont deux disciplines aux intérêts antagonistes. L’exploitation d’une ICPE impose à l’entreprise une obligation de remise en état des sites et sols pollués à la cessation d’activité. L’ouverture d’une procédure de liquidation judiciaire vouée à une clôture pour insuffisance d’actif est une menace sérieuse à la prise en charge des créances environnementales par l’entreprise en difficulté. Le mécanisme des garanties financières paraît plus adapté au principe pollueur-payeur qui fonde l’obligation de remise en état mais reste inefficace tandis que les systèmes mutualistes et la « séniorisation » d’une partie des créances environnementales dans l’apurement du passif par la loi portant industrie verte contrastent avec la philosophie du principe pollueur-payeur. Cette étude se propose de concilier les intérêts du droit de l’environnement et ceux du droit des entreprises en difficulté par le concept d’une « assurance-vie environnementale » comme outil juridique et financier au service de l’intérêt général

This dissertation on the relationship between the business rescue practitioner and the directors of the company under business rescue. In essence, this dissertation investigates whether a conflict arises between the duties, roles and powers of the business rescue practitioner and those of directors of the financially distressed company. The aim of this dissertation is to study what are the limitation on duties, roles and powers of directors of the company as a result of the appointment of the business rescue practitioner and the extent thereof. In achieving the above objective, this dissertation commences with setting out the background of business rescue proceedings in South Africa by analysing provisions of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 which has introduced “a new corporate rescue procedure” in South Africa, being business rescue. The focus is on provisions dealing with duties, roles and powers of directors in the ordinary course as set out in section 66, 75 to 77 of the Act. The focus then shifts to the provisions dealing with the commencement of business rescue proceedings, the appointment of the business rescue practitioner and his duties, roles and powers. In order to establish whether a conflict truly exists between the duties, roles and powers, various sources dealing with this issue are considered. In order to assess whether there are solutions in dealing with the conflict and/or limitation that arises, this dissertation includes a comparative study on selected foreign jurisdictions dealing with the interaction between the board of directors and business rescue practitioner are considered. In particular, this dissertation considers corporate rescue mechanisms in the Commonwealth of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The purpose of the comparative study is to determine which lessons can be learned from the practices in the aforementioned jurisdictions. The overall objective of this study is to determine how the South African legal framework pertaining to the interaction between directors and business rescue practitioners can be enhanced.

L’acte uniforme originel sur les procédures collectives avait prévu une procédure préventive, le règlement préventif, au bénéfice des débiteurs qui traversent des difficultés sérieuses. La nécessité de la consécration d’une procédure à la fois amiable et préventive s’est imposée. C’est désormais chose faite depuis la révision de 2015. Le législateur a ainsi consacré les procédures de conciliation et de médiation à l’article 2-1 de l’Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif (AUPC). Si pour la mise en œuvre de la première, il faut se référer à l’AUPC, la deuxième est règlementée dans l’Acte uniforme sur la médiation (AUM). Nous proposons donc dans cette étude, à la suite de la présentation de ces procédures amiables comme modes anticipatifs et efficaces de sauvetage d’entreprises, des pistes de réflexion afin de rendre effectif le recours à cet arsenal juridique.

Environmental reclamation obligations are statutory mechanisms designed to regulate environmental protection by corporate entities. Bankruptcy laws on the other hand are meant to offer insolvent corporations an opportunity to reorganize their affairs, satisfy creditors claims and make a fresh start. In practice, the application of bankruptcy laws can undermine key environmental reclamation objectives, leading many to ask whether a corporation undergoing restructuring with significant outstanding environmental reclamation obligations should be able to commence bankruptcy proceedings to satisfy creditors’ claims? By employing the doctrinal and comparative research methodologies, this research interrogates that inquiry. It argues that, despite the importance of bankruptcy protection for corporations undergoing financial distress, environmental protection should be paramount. Although sustainable finance (SF) instruments have been deployed by banks to enable creditors to mitigate environmental concerns in their investments, the persistent recurrence of environmental reclamation issues in the oil and gas sector particularly during insolvencies, underscores the need for financial investors to strengthen their investment policies to reflect best practices providing the desired protection for the environment. The research finds that, although SF and environmental, social and governance (ESG) approaches, are commendable, they are insufficient in instilling adequate regulatory impact on the environment compared to judicial control offered by the courts. The thesis concludes that whilst judicial control mechanism is not without concerns, with government’s deliberate financial policy and judicial control to complement SF and ESG efforts, ESG and SF mechanisms can be strengthened to compel greater significant influence on best practices in lending.

Le droit OHADA des procédures collectives connaît quatre procédures collectives, deux procédures préventives et deux procédures curatives. A ces procédures il faut ajouter des variantes, c’est-à-dire des procédures simplifiées, applicables aux entreprises de petite taille. Parmi les procédures préventives note-t-on le règlement préventif, qui a toujours existé, depuis le premier Acte uniforme OHADA portant organisation des procédures collectives d’apurement du passif. Mais, avec la réforme intervenue en 2015, cette procédure a connu de légers changements, qui invitent la doctrine à porter un regard sur ce qu’est devenu la procédure de règlement préventif. Les auteurs de ces lignes ont opté pour l’analyse de la situation du créancier non-cité par son débiteur admis au bénéfice du règlement préventif.

This study aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive legal analysis of international bankruptcy and related issues by drawing on comparative law and private international law. In this context, this thesis aims to determine the legal qualifications of the transactions that fall within the framework of international insolvency and to address the problems related to these issues in detail. This study consists of five chapters. The first chapter examines the specific aspects of insolvency in the fields of debt enforcement, procedural law, and substantive law. The main argument in this chapter is that bankruptcy law has its own normative scope. In this framework, bankruptcy law and enforcement law regulate areas that can be analytically distinguished from each other. The law of debt enforcement regulates all actions and procedures based on the state's sovereignty and power to use force. On the other hand, bankruptcy law can be characterized as a multi-layered and unique branch of substantive law that has features related to the law of obligations or commercial law, depending on the context. The first chapter begins with an etymology of the concept of insolvency across various languages. The Turkish word "iflâs" is highlighted, which comes from the Arabic word "fls" (fels), indicating a state of destitution and insolvency. In English, the term "bankruptcy" has historical origins that trace back to medieval Italy, where merchants who couldn't pay their debts had their trading benches physically broken, a practice referred to as "banca rotta." The main goal of this analysis is to emphasize that historically, insolvency has been perceived as a condition of incapacity and deficiency resulting in disgrace, even in the mildest scenarios. In terms of the severity of Roman law, penalties such as enslavement or death for bankrupt individuals illustrate how grave the offense of bankruptcy was considered. Furthermore, during the Middle Ages, those in financial distress were scorned by society. Meanwhile, with the modernization of legal systems, efforts have been made to alleviate the negative social perception of individuals who become insolvent. These efforts have led to changes in the law and the emergence of new terminologies. Over time, legal terminology across different countries has evolved. For example, in the US, the terms "debtor" and "insolvency" are now more commonly used in place of "bankrupt" and "bankruptcy" respectively, in the context of insolvency law. In line with these changes in terminology, reform efforts at both the comparative and international law levels aim to diminish the stigma attached to insolvent individuals and companies, striving to provide them with the opportunity for a fresh start within the economic order. Moving on, the first section distinguishes between the narrow and broad meanings of the concept of insolvency in comparative law and international instruments. Throughout this study, bankruptcy in its narrow sense refers specifically to procedures that involve the liquidation and distribution of a debtor's assets and/or the dissolution of their legal personality to satisfy creditors in accordance with applicable laws. In contrast, the broad sense of insolvency encompasses the debtor's objective inability to pay, the formal declaration of this predicament by a competent authority, body, or the debtor themselves, as well as all subsequent actions taken to settle claims and manage the debtor's assets. Within this expansive interpretation of insolvency, the study underscores the principle of collectivity, which is critical in administering bankruptcy procedures. Additionally, it conceptualizes bankruptcy as a wide-ranging framework, starting from liquidation in the narrowest scope and extending to include debt restructuring and non-judicial workout solutions. Furthermore, this study primarily considers insolvency law as substantive law. It supports the notion that while insolvency contains procedural elements, these are not its defining features. The focus here is on the processes associated with the initiation, execution, management, and conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings. The second chapter of the study is dedicated to the conceptual framework and theoretical perspectives of international insolvency. The term "international insolvency" refers to various situations in which a debtor may have a cross-border element—such as operating in more than one country, being domestic with creditors located abroad, being a foreign entity with domestic creditors, or having assets dispersed over multiple countries. In this section, the chapter elaborates on various theoretical approaches to the legal framework governing international insolvency. These approaches include territorialism, which is based on the principle of territoriality or locality; universalism, which advocates for consistent practices and standards in cross-border insolvencies; and the hybrid approach. Due to the practical difficulties encountered with universalism, mixed approaches have been developed, offering alternatives such as cooperative territoriality, multilateralism, contract theory, universal proceduralism, and modified universalism. The examination of these approaches, each presenting distinctive advantages and challenges, provides significant insights into the ongoing and potential resolutions for issues in international insolvency. Chapter Three outlines a general framework that defines the relationship between international insolvency and the law. In this chapter, the legal nature of international insolvency law is first explained, and a reminder is provided of the modern insolvency law approach introduced in the first chapter. Within this framework, the aim of insolvency law is to develop a collective procedural structure founded on the principles of justice that considers the interests of all parties involved. It seeks to maximize the value of the debtor's assets, minimize waste, ensure the rescue of viable businesses, and develop appropriate techniques for these purposes. The transnational aspect of bankruptcy introduces an additional layer of complexity to the existing definition and framework. Consequently, international insolvency law is evolving into a distinct system within private international law, specifically catering to transnational insolvency cases. This system often described as "sui generis" strives to fulfill the objectives of insolvency in scenarios that transcend national borders. The growing field of transnational insolvency anticipates the effective centralization of proceedings that are acknowledged and aided by foreign authorities. The goal is to maximize asset values and ensure business recovery while carefully considering the interests of all affected parties, regardless of their location. In international insolvency cases, it's important to balance the interests of creditors and debtors. Factors like nationality or foreign status, as well as the role of the state as an entity under international law, should be considered in this balance. In order to establish this balance, it is of great importance to explore harmonious and effective solutions by evaluating these interests in a holistic framework. Practices in international insolvency and comparative law have tended towards a perspective that aims to harmonize and coordinate different interests. In fact, this is the main concern of the modified universalism approach. From this perspective, the final section of the third chapter examines various legal frameworks or regimes for international insolvency. This includes a study of the ecosystem of Model Laws related to insolvency, with particular emphasis on the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law, as well as the regulations in force within the European Union, the United States, and Latin American countries. The fourth chapter delves into international insolvency by addressing traditional concepts of international procedural law. It evaluates the criteria for international jurisdiction in insolvency proceedings, the recognition of foreign insolvency judgments, and the determination of applicable law. These topics are scrutinized using a comparative legal framework, drawing from the UNCITRAL Model Law, regulations in the U.S. and the EU, and various national laws, which the third chapter discusses. Techniques from comparative and private international law are employed to analyze these issues, which can be summarized as follows: Firstly, in the realm of international insolvency and private international law, a common challenge involves identifying the competent court for the proceedings. This issue is often resolved using the principle of the Center of Main Interests (COMI). COMI refers to the primary location of a company's or legal entity's operational activities in the context of insolvency or debt restructuring. It is typically associated with the site of the debtor's main administrative office, the place where significant operations are conducted, or the location where crucial commercial decisions are made. Additionally, the issue of forum shopping often arises in discussions of international jurisdiction and represents the second significant concern. In the context of international insolvency, 'forum shopping' is the practice where an internationally active company selects a jurisdiction that is perceived to offer the most favorable legal environment for its restructuring or insolvency processes. The company then takes steps to establish its case in the chosen jurisdiction in hopes of benefiting from its laws in the event of insolvency. The modified universalism approach argues for a legal framework where the primary insolvency proceedings are initiated in the debtor's Center of Main Interests (COMI), while ancillary proceedings may occur in other jurisdictions. Such a framework aims to curb the practice of forum shopping. Both the UNCITRAL Model Law and the EU Insolvency Regulation embrace this approach, thus promoting a more orderly and predictable system for handling cross-border insolvencies. The second issue addressed in Chapter Four is the recognition of the effect of foreign insolvency procedures. This section scrutinizes how foreign insolvency procedures interrelate with existing cross-border insolvency frameworks and evaluates the limitations imposed by such frameworks on the ability of these procedures to be recognized and enforced. Initially, the discussion focuses on how international frameworks handle the concept of a foreign procedure, beginning with standards set by the Model Law and then proceeding to the foreign insolvency procedures outlined in the EU Insolvency Regulation. The characteristics of the procedures in these two contexts are compared, and the techniques foreign courts apply to recognize, enforce, or reject them are examined. The third issue explored in the fourth chapter is the rules concerning the applicable law, with a focus on the principle of Lex fori concursus. This concept is rooted in the broader lex fori principle, a cornerstone of private international law. Under the Lex fori principle, a court typically applies its own domestic law—the law of the forum—to decide both procedural matters and, in the context of insolvency, the substantive rules governing the proceedings. This application of domestic law aligns with the state's sovereignty, as procedural law is deemed an extension of a nation's public law framework. According to the principle of Lex fori concursus, the law of the country where the insolvency proceedings are initiated typically governs the insolvency process and any related legal actions. This principle is formalized as a general rule in Article 7 of the EU Insolvency Regulation. Nevertheless, the regulation also delineates specific exceptions to this principle in subsequent provisions. These exceptions, as articulated in the EU Insolvency Regulation, include the following: (1) Third parties' rights in rem; (2) set-off; (3) reservation of title; (4) contracts relating to immoveable property; (5) payment systems and financial markets; (6) contracts of employment; (7) rights subject to registration; (8) detrimental acts of the debtor; (9) effects of insolvency proceedings on pending lawsuits or arbitral proceedings and 10) Protection of third-party purchasers. Furthermore, public policy is also recognized as an exception. It is a general principle that when foreign court proceedings are concerned, the Lex fori concursus - the law of the place where the insolvency proceedings are occurring -should be applied by the local court. The public policy exception, however, might place restrictions on this principle. This safeguard, which bars the application of foreign laws that are in conflict with the fundamental principles of the local law, enables the local court to give preference to its own laws over those of another country under specific, limited circumstances in bankruptcy cases. Nevertheless, it is important to underline that the concept of public policy does not grant countries unfettered discretion. UNCITRAL emphasizes that for the exception to the lex fori concursus to be invoked on public policy grounds, the contravention must be "manifestly" evident, leaving no room for doubt. Chapter 5 explores the specific challenges associated with international insolvency, such as the identification of the debtor's assets, the imposition of insolvency seizures, the prioritization of claims, and the annulment of detrimental transactions intended to disadvantage creditors. Furthermore, the chapter examines the procedures governing insolvency and the complexities surrounding the insolvency of multinational corporations. Among these problems, under the section titled 'Determination of the Debtor's Assets and Insolvency Seizure,' the text mentions the difficult task of monitoring and recovering assets internationally in the digital age, where goods can rapidly move across borders. Variations in practices among different countries contribute to inconsistencies in this area and exacerbate challenges in insolvency cases. International commercial activities and cross-border bankruptcies further complicate the process of tracing and recouping assets and can result in conflicts between laws. The absence of a universal legal framework, applicable across all countries, poses a significant impediment to protecting assets and maximizing their recovery in the course of insolvency proceedings. In this context, there is a pressing need to cultivate global cooperation and establish mechanisms that address critical issues such as the identification of assets, the temporary seizure of assets, and the prevention of unauthorized transfers. For instance, the use of 'freezing orders'—the authority to impose temporary restrictions on the transfer, sale, or disposal of assets under foreign jurisdictions—has proven effective in safeguarding assets. Within the European Union, Articles 19(1) and 20(1) of the EU Insolvency Regulation mandate that an EU-wide suspension of transactions automatically takes effect upon the initiation of substantive insolvency proceedings in any Member State. Another issue discussed in the fifth chapter concerns the annulment of transactions made with the intent to harm creditors, an issue commonly referred to as 'avoidance.' This term describes any actions that undermine the debtor's ability to fulfill its obligations, thus impairing the rights of creditors by devaluing the debtor's assets or rendering them unreachable for creditor claims. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and the EU Insolvency Regulation both seek to offer various solutions to this problem. Nevertheless, avoidance laws can differ significantly from one country to another, where legal systems have disparate criteria for assessing the validity of such transactions. A transaction that is deemed fraudulent in one jurisdiction could be considered valid in another. The chapter also addresses "conflicts of priorities" which present analogous challenges. The matter of creditor priority in international insolvency law underscores the absence of standardized regulations and systems, consequently impeding cooperation among courts and complicating the adjudication process. Considerable variations exist in the interpretation of equitable treatment for domestic and foreign creditors during insolvency proceedings, as well as in how such equity should be guaranteed. These complexities span from determining the sequence of repayment to more granular concerns regarding the handling of various types of creditors and their respective claims. These difficulties obstruct efforts to establish a consistent and harmonized framework for international insolvency law. In international insolvency cases, the varying legal traditions, economic levels of different countries, and cultural norms that shape business and economic practices necessitate a flexible framework capable of accommodating all alternatives—judicial and extrajudicial—to manage insolvency effectively. The prevailing trend in cross border insolvency law, as reflected in internationally recognized instruments, aligns with the general evolution of insolvency and restructuring law. This trend entails examining the compatibility of evolved insolvency procedures, which offer solutions for early-stage financial distress, with the mechanisms for recognition, cooperation, and legal assistance provided by international frameworks. Moreover, the impact of these procedures' implementation within the context of such frameworks is thoroughly considered. Chapter 5 concludes with a discussion on the insolvencies of multinational corporations, which have significantly grown in complexity due to the global economic downturns experienced over the past three decades. These insolvencies have carved out a distinct and intricate niche within international insolvency law, necessitating detailed scrutiny. The collapse of such large, cross-border enterprises highlights some of the most challenging facets of insolvency cases and has a profound influence on the global economic landscape. As this area intersects with the broader issues explored earlier in the study, it stands out as a fertile ground for legal innovation and swift progression, drawing upon advancements in legal theory, comparative law practices, and international regulations. The ongoing efforts and developments in this sector are proving essential in tackling these multifaceted challenges day by day. In conclusion, this study provides a thorough examination of the foundations, distinguishing traits, and practical applications of international insolvency law, framed within comparative and private international law. Its principal aim is to enrich the legal and theoretical discourse on cross-border insolvency by meticulously investigating the multifaceted procedures of insolvency in their global context. The historical development of insolvency and its integration into modern legal systems are explored, recognizing the profound influence of international insolvency's complexities on various legal frameworks. With a particular focus on two salient issues, the study confronts challenging topics such as the recognition and interrelationship of insolvency proceedings, their alignment with collaborative mechanisms and judicial support, the expansive definition and scope of insolvency across jurisdictions, and the intricate insolvencies faced by multinational corporations.

L’ouverture d’une procédure collective, notamment celle après la cessation des paiements entraine la saisie collective des biens du débiteur au profit de ses créanciers. Le conjoint in bonis peut voir ses biens engloutis dans une procédure collective qui ne le concerne pas. Dans le souci de préserver le patrimoine du conjoint in bonis et par là la cellule familiale, le législateur OHADA a prévu des mécanismes de protection, qui pour une meilleure efficacité doivent être combinés aux solutions proposées par le droit civil.

Le droit des procédures collectives permet de traiter les difficultés que les entreprises traversent en permettant leurs redressements lorsque cela est encore possible. L’objectif est de trouver des solutions afin d’éviter la liquidation d’un grand nombre d’entreprises. La bonne continuité des activités d’une entreprise est un gage d’une bonne économie du marché et d’un monde des affaires florissant. Prévenir les difficultés des entreprises et organiser leur redressement nécessite un comportement adéquat et une certaine probité du débiteur. Ainsi, l’honnêteté du débiteur est cruciale car elle favorise la continuité des activités de l’entreprise et une bonne marche de l’économie nationale et mondiale. Le droit OHADA n’a cependant pas prévu expressément l’exigence d’une probité du débiteur. En effet, cette exigence se constate implicitement d’une part, lors de la constitution du dossier de demande d’ouverture des procédures et d’autre part, pendant l’exécution ou la mise en œuvre des mesures tendant à sauvegarder la continuité de l’activité. Des incriminations prévues par le droit communautaire, permettent de sanctionner des comportements déloyaux traduisant également une consécration implicite d’une obligation de probité à l’égard du débiteur. The law of insolvency proceedings makes it possible to deal with the difficulties that companies are going through by allowing them to recover when it is still possible. The aim is to find solutions to avoid the liquidation of a large number of companies. Good business continuity is a guarantee of a good market economy and a thriving business world. Preventing companies' difficulties and organising their recovery requires appropriate behaviour and a certain probity on the part of the debtor. Thus, the honesty of the debtor is crucial because it promotes the continuity of the company's activities and the smooth running of the national and global economy. The OHADA law, however, did not expressly provide for the requirement of probity of the debtor. This requirement is implicit, on the one hand, when the application for opening proceedings is being filed and, on the other hand, during the execution or implementation of measures designed to safeguard the continuity of activity. The incriminations provided for by Community law make it possible to sanction unfair conduct which also reflects an implicit commitment of a duty of probity towards the debtor.

Les procédures collectives ont toujours entretenu des rapports complexes et conflictuels avec d’autres branches du droit privé. Cela n’est guère démenti lorsqu’on confronte la matière avec le droit processuel. La présente réflexion vise dans une analyse explicative et démonstrative à présenter la situation de l’un des principes cardinaux du procès qu’est le contradictoire lorsque s’ouvre une procédure collective. A l’analyse et à l’observation, s’il est certes vrai qu’on note une forte perception du contradictoire dans les procédures préventives, ce principe connait un recul dans les procédures de traitement des difficultés des entreprises du fait de la forte intervention du juge.