This work processes and systematically describes the latest knowledge in the field of setting up fictitious companies in the Czech Republic, characterizes their current status and future trends. The main objective of this work is the analysis of the current level and the comparison between setting up fictitious and real company in terms of general business and legal requirements, simplicity and delays and in terms of comparison of individual legal forms and types of business representation. The theoretical part of the work deals with the procedure of starting a real company in time-sequential steps. In the practical part of the work, except for explaining the procedure setting up a fictitious company, is the attention focused on the comparison of the two procedures. There are described the individual differences in detail, which in many respects results from formal dissimilarities of the participated subjects. For this purpose was done a survey conducted among teachers of the school subject the Fictitious Company. The main aim of this work is to provide teachers, teaching the subject, with a didactical and teaching aid that, apart from the information on setting up fictitious companies, provides a comparison with the setting up of a real company. Defining the differences between setting up fictitious and real companies is an important tool for understanding the nature and the meaning of fictitious companies and help to improve the quality of teaching.

La cessation des paiements, c’est sans aucun doute l’une des notions clés du droit des procédures collectives. Pour s’en rendre compte, il suffit de vérifier le contentieux qui en la matière est très abondant. Légalement définie au sein du premier alinéa de l’article L. 631-1 du Code de commerce comme l’impossibilité pou un débiteur de faire face à son passif exigible avec son actif disponible, cette définition, a été, à l’origine, l’œuvre d’une décision de la Cour de cassation rendue le 14 février 1978. Sous l’empire des dispositions antérieures à la loi de sauvegarde des entreprises, la cessation des paiements est un « curseur » qui sert de ligne de démarcation entre les procédures amiables et les procédures judiciaires. Un tel système a été dénoncé car il manquait cruellement de souplesse et d’efficacité dans la lutte contre les défaillances des entreprises. La loi du 26 juillet 2005, dans l’optique d’anticiper le traitement des difficultés des entreprises a mis un terme au système de « la cessation-curseur » en instituant la procédure amiable de conciliation et la procédure collective de sauvegarde. Toutefois, lorsque les « digues » que constituent les outils de l’anticipation n’ont pas pu enrayer le risque de cessation des paiements, le chef d’entreprise qui se retrouve dans une telle situation doit, dans un délai de quarante-cinq jours, demander l’ouverture d’une procédure de redressement ou de liquidation judiciaire. Lorsqu’il ouvre l’une ou l’autre de ces deux procédures, le tribunal saisi doit fixer une date de cessation des paiements. Cette date sera décisive pour la détermination de la période suspecte. De plus, l’ouverture des procédures collectives aura une incidence sur l’entreprise, elle joue sa survie, sur les créanciers dont le recouvrement de la créance est menacé, sur les fournisseurs qui craignent pour leurs relations contractuelles avec le débiteur, sur les garants qui craignent d’être appelés et sur la personne du débiteur elle-même. Sa gestion antérieure de l’entreprise sera scrutée et s’il en résulte des fautes en relation plus ou moins directe avec la cessation des paiements, il encourt des sanctions ou des actions en responsabilité. / Cessation of payments is certainly one of the key concepts in the law on collective insolvency proceedings. This can be seen by checking the litigation, which is very abundant in this matter. Legally defined in the first paragraph of Article L. 631-1 of the Commercial Code as the inability of a debtor to meet its accrued liabilities with its quick assets, this definition originated in a decision of the Court of Cassation issued on February 14, 1978. Under the provisions prior to the insolvency act, cessation of payments is a "cursor" which serves as a line of demarcation between amicable proceedings and judicial proceedings. Such a system has been criticized for being sorely lacking in flexibility and effectiveness in preventing business failures. The law of July 26, 2005, with the objective of anticipating treatment of company difficulties, put an end to the "cessation-cursor" by instituting the amicable conciliation proceeding and the collective insolvency proceeding. However, when the "barriers" formed by the anticipation tools have not been able to halt the risk of cessation of payments, the company director in such a situation must, within a period of forty-five days, request the initiation of a receivership or court-supervised liquidation proceeding. When either of these proceedings is initiated, the court must fix a date of cessation of payments. This date will be final for the determination of the suspect period. Moreover, the initiation of collective insolvency proceedings will have an effect on the enterprise fighting for survival, on the creditors whose ability to collect their debt is threatened, on the suppliers worried about their contractual relations with the debtor, on the guarantors who fear being called upon and on the debtor itself. Prior management of the enterprise will be probed and if faults more or less closely connected to the cessation of payments are revealed, sanctions or tort actions may result.