Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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.