The judge and the rescue of the company under OHADA (Organisation for the Harmonisation of the law of Affairs) law and in French law: A comparative study

The Uniform Act organizing collective proceedings for discharge of liabilities, adopted on 10 April 1998 in Libreville and entered into force on 1 January 1998 came harmonize the insolvency law in the Member countries of the Organization for the Harmonization of the law of Affairs (OHADA). Indeed, these countries were up there, in material, with inadequate texts dating from the colonial era. Under today proven relatives of African and French legal systems in law firms in difficulty, it was interesting to carry out a comparative study on the role of the judge in the rescue of the firm in difficulty in both systems.

The study reveals that African law and French law, judge's intervention levels vary depending on whether the company is in bonuses or depending on whether it is in a State of cessation of payments.

To enable the judge to carry out the mission to rescue of the firm in difficulty, African and French lawmakers have granted action procedural means characterized sometimes convergent and sometimes divergent manner as appropriate, by a master of the instance and immediate execution of judicial decisions.

However, the study reveals the existence in both legal orders of many obstacles that oppose the incumbent judges African and French, rescue mission obstacles so many functional order than structural. Next to the solutions here and all these problems, there other proposals are made to make more efficient action by the judge. It remains that, whether it's African law or French law, through the question of the role of the judge in the rescue of the firm in difficulty, arises the recurring problem of the real capacity of the law to curb economic phenomena.