La faillite internationale est une matière complexe qui a donné lieu à un long et vif débat doctrinal entre les tenants des systèmes de la territorialité et de l'universalité. Une faillite est internationale lorsqu'elle met en présence un débiteur possédant des biens ou des créanciers dans plus d'un pays. Puisque la matière de faillite est souvent très différente d'un pays à l'autre, l'application du système de la pluralité, retenue dans la plupart des pays, soulève plusieurs problèmes particulièrement en ce qui concerne la coordination entre les diverses faillites et le manque de protection des créanciers, notamment parce qu'elle accorde des effets limités à la reconnaissance des procédures de faillite étrangères. En effet, en présence de procédures de faillite concurrentes il s'agit de répondre aux questions suivantes: quelle est la juridiction compétente pour ouvrir et organiser la faillite? Quelle est la loi applicable? Dans quels États cette faillite va-t-elle produire des effets? Dans le présent mémoire, il s'agit d'établir une comparaison entre le système canadien et le système européen en matière de faillite internationale. Le législateur canadien a récemment envisagé de modifier sa législation sur la faillite pour permettre une meilleure coopération internationale en matière de faillite internationale. Le projet canadien C-55 reprend pour l'essentiel les dispositions contenues dans la loi-type de la commission des Nations-Unis pour le droit commercial international (CNUDCI) sur «l'insolvabilité internationale». Ainsi, il permet de faciliter réellement la reconnaissance des décisions de faillite étrangères, il accorde une plus grande portée aux effets de cette reconnaissance et il prévoit une coordination des procédures multiples en établissant une «hiérarchisation» des procédures de faillite relativement semblable au système européen. Cependant, le projet canadien atteint moins bien l'objectif d'universalité que le Règlement européen 1346/2000 au niveau du traitement égalitaire entre les créanciers locaux et les créanciers étrangers. Si la loi-type offre à tous les États une utilité pratique considérable pour les nombreux cas de coopération internationale, l'harmonisation de la faillite internationale dépendra de son adoption dans les différentes législations. Bien que plusieurs pays aient inséré ce modèle dans leur législation sur la faillite, il n'est pas encore possible, à l'heure actuelle, de parler d'un droit international de la faillite. / International insolvency is a complex subject that has given rise to a long and sharp doctrinal debate between supporters of systems of territorialism and of universality. An insolvency is international where a debtor possesses goods or creditors in more than one country. Since the matter of bankruptcy is often very different from one country to another, the application of the system of plurality, which is retained in the majority of countries, raises several problems, particularly with regard to the coordination between several bankruptcies and the lack of protection of creditors, largely because plurality grants effects that are limited to the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy procedures. Indeed, in the presence of concurrent procedures of bankruptcy, the following questions must be addressed: Which is the court having jurisdiction to open and organize the bankruptcy? Which law is applicable? In which States will this bankruptcy produce effects? This thesis will establish a comparison between the Canadian system and the European system with respect to international bankruptcy. The Canadian legislator recently planned to modify its legislation on bankruptcy in order to better foster international co-operation in the realm of international bankruptcy. The Canadian Bill C-55 largely reiterates the provisions contained in the Model Law on cross border insolvency (UNCITRAL). Bill C-55 thus facilitates the recognition of foreign decisions of bankruptcy, it grants a greater scope to the effects of this recognition and it aims to coordinate multiple bankruptcy procedures by establishing a "hierarchisation" there of that is relatively similar to the European system. However, the Canadian project does not achieve the goal of universality as well as does the European regulation 1346/2000 with respect to equal treatment between local creditors and foreign creditors. If the Model Law offers all States the considerable practical utility for many incidences of international co-operation, the harmonization of international bankruptcy will depend on the adoption of the Model Law in various domestic legislations. Although several countries have inserted this model in their legislation on bankruptcy, it is not yet possible, at the present time, to speak of an international law of bankruptcy.

Cette thèse précise les conditions dans lesquelles les tribunaux judiciaires canadiens peuvent intervenir avant ou durant un arbitrage commercial international, soit afin d'y prêter assistance, soit afin d'en contrôler la légalité. Elle soumet également ces conditions à l'analyse critique, dans le but d'esquisser une théorie générale de l'intervention avant et durant un arbitrage commercial international des juges oeuvrant dans les États qui ont choisi d'accorder leur concours à la justice arbitrale internationale. Principalement, cette théorie repose sur l'idée selon laquelle l'intervention judiciaire survenant avant le prononcé de la sentence ne doit - à quelques exceptions près - servir que les intérêts des opérateurs du commerce international, les intérêts publics prépondérants ne devant être pris en compte que dans l'élaboration des conditions de l'intervention judiciaire survenant après le prononcé de la sentence. De cette idée directrice découlent deux conséquences majeures. D'abord, les ordres juridiques des États qui accordent leur concours à la justice arbitrale internationale doivent être perméables à des faits normatifs transnationaux qui s'intéressent à l'intervention judiciaire avant et durant un arbitrage commercial international, car l'adoption d'une loi ayant vocation à régir spécialement l'arbitrage commercial international ne peut jamais - à elle seule - assurer que les tribunaux judiciaires agiront de manière pleinement satisfaisante. Ensuite, les conditions de cette intervention doivent surtout avoir pour objectif d'accroître l'efficacité - envisagée du point de vue des opérateurs du commerce international - de ce système de justice internationale. / This thesis sets out the conditions under which Canadian courts can intervene prior to and during an international commercial arbitration, either to assist the arbitral process or to control its legality. These conditions are also analyzed in a critical manner, with a view to elaborating a general theory of judicial intervention prior to and during an international commercial arbitration in States that have chosen to support international arbitral justice. This theory essentially rests on the idea that judicial intervention occurring before the rendering of the award must almost entirely be geared towards satisfying the interests of international business operators, as superior public interests need only be reflected in the conditions under which courts may intervene after an award has been rendered. Two major consequences flow from this idea. Firstly, the legal orders of States that have chosen to support international arbitral justice must be permeable to transnational normative facts which relate to judicial intervention prior to and during an international commercial arbitration, as the adoption of legislation dealing specifically with international commercial arbitration can never - in itself - ensure that courts will act in a fully satisfactory manner. Secondly, the conditions of such intervention must essentially be aimed at increasing the efficiency - assessed from the point of view of international business operators - of this system of international justice. / "Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université de Montréal en vue de l'obtention du grade de Docteur en droit (LL.D.) et à l'Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) Droit-économie-Sciences Sociales en vue de l'obtention du grade de Docteur en droit (Arrêté du 30 mars 1992 modifié par l'arrêté du 25 avril 2002)"

L'arbitrage évolue parallèlement et en accord au développement du commerce et des relations internationales s'accompagnant d'un accroissement des différends commerciaux de plus en plus complexes et spécialisés. En choisissant l'arbitrage, les parties excluent, de manière consensuelle, la compétence juridictionnelle des tribunaux étatiques. Ce droit à l'accès aux tribunaux étatiques se retrouve notamment à la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés de la personne. La validité d'une convention d'arbitrage dépend donc avant tout de la preuve de son existence et la preuve du consentement des parties s'y rattachant. La nécessité de l'écrit est donc un moyen de s'assurer du consentement des parties. La Convention de New York de 1958 énumère plusieurs de ces principes de forme. Son article 11(2), qui prévoit que la convention d'arbitrage doit être par écrit, n'est plus adapté aux réalités juridiques et commerciales d'aujourd'hui ni au développement du commerce électronique. Que peut être considéré comme un écrit afin de répondre aux exigences de l'article 1I(2)? Abordée par la CNUDCI, cette problématique quant au formalisme requis dans l'expression de la volonté des parties à se soumettre à l'arbitrage est d'une importance capitale dans la mesure des différentes interprétations qui existent à ce sujet tant au niveau du droit québécois et canadien qu'au niveau du droit international. Une réforme des dispositions législatives quant au formalisme écrit du consentement à l'arbitrage doit être mise en place et ce, soit par une réforme des dispositions législatives existantes ou par une mise à jour officielle de l'interprétation donnée aux dispositions actuelles en vigueur. / Arbitration has evolved in parallel and in accordance with the development of commerce and of international relations coming along with the rise of commercial disputes which are becoming increasingly complex and specialised. By choosing arbitration, the parties consensually exclude the jurisdiction ofState courts. This right to access State courts is protected namely in the Charter ofHuman Rights and Freedoms. The validity of an arbitration clause therefore depends above all on the proof of its existence and of the consent of the parties to that effect. The necessity of the written form becomes a mean that insures of the consent of the parties. The 1958 New York Convention enumerates several of those formal requirements. !ts section 11(2), which states that the arbitration clause has to be in written form, is not adapted to today's legal and commercial reality nor to the development of electronic commerce. What exactly is considered as ''written'' in order to respect the requirements of section 1I(2)? As addressed by UNCITRAL, the issue concerning the formalism required for the expression of the parties' intent to be subjected to arbitration is of a vital importance. Numerous interpretations exist in Canadian law as well as in International law. A reform of the existing legal provisions relating to the consent of arbitration needs to be implemented, either through a reform of the existing provisions or through an official process to update the interpretation given to the requirements that are a1ready in place. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de LL.M. en droit option droit des affaires"

La faillite internationale est une matière complexe qui a donné lieu à un long et vif débat doctrinal entre les tenants des systèmes de la territorialité et de l'universalité. Une faillite est internationale lorsqu'elle met en présence un débiteur possédant des biens ou des créanciers dans plus d'un pays. Puisque la matière de faillite est souvent très différente d'un pays à l'autre, l'application du système de la pluralité, retenue dans la plupart des pays, soulève plusieurs problèmes particulièrement en ce qui concerne la coordination entre les diverses faillites et le manque de protection des créanciers, notamment parce qu'elle accorde des effets limités à la reconnaissance des procédures de faillite étrangères. En effet, en présence de procédures de faillite concurrentes il s'agit de répondre aux questions suivantes: quelle est la juridiction compétente pour ouvrir et organiser la faillite? Quelle est la loi applicable? Dans quels États cette faillite va-t-elle produire des effets? Dans le présent mémoire, il s'agit d'établir une comparaison entre le système canadien et le système européen en matière de faillite internationale. Le législateur canadien a récemment envisagé de modifier sa législation sur la faillite pour permettre une meilleure coopération internationale en matière de faillite internationale. Le projet canadien C-55 reprend pour l'essentiel les dispositions contenues dans la loi-type de la commission des Nations-Unis pour le droit commercial international (CNUDCI) sur «l'insolvabilité internationale». Ainsi, il permet de faciliter réellement la reconnaissance des décisions de faillite étrangères, il accorde une plus grande portée aux effets de cette reconnaissance et il prévoit une coordination des procédures multiples en établissant une «hiérarchisation» des procédures de faillite relativement semblable au système européen. Cependant, le projet canadien atteint moins bien l'objectif d'universalité que le Règlement européen 1346/2000 au niveau du traitement égalitaire entre les créanciers locaux et les créanciers étrangers. Si la loi-type offre à tous les États une utilité pratique considérable pour les nombreux cas de coopération internationale, l'harmonisation de la faillite internationale dépendra de son adoption dans les différentes législations. Bien que plusieurs pays aient inséré ce modèle dans leur législation sur la faillite, il n'est pas encore possible, à l'heure actuelle, de parler d'un droit international de la faillite. / International insolvency is a complex subject that has given rise to a long and sharp doctrinal debate between supporters of systems of territorialism and of universality. An insolvency is international where a debtor possesses goods or creditors in more than one country. Since the matter of bankruptcy is often very different from one country to another, the application of the system of plurality, which is retained in the majority of countries, raises several problems, particularly with regard to the coordination between several bankruptcies and the lack of protection of creditors, largely because plurality grants effects that are limited to the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy procedures. Indeed, in the presence of concurrent procedures of bankruptcy, the following questions must be addressed: Which is the court having jurisdiction to open and organize the bankruptcy? Which law is applicable? In which States will this bankruptcy produce effects? This thesis will establish a comparison between the Canadian system and the European system with respect to international bankruptcy. The Canadian legislator recently planned to modify its legislation on bankruptcy in order to better foster international co-operation in the realm of international bankruptcy. The Canadian Bill C-55 largely reiterates the provisions contained in the Model Law on cross border insolvency (UNCITRAL). Bill C-55 thus facilitates the recognition of foreign decisions of bankruptcy, it grants a greater scope to the effects of this recognition and it aims to coordinate multiple bankruptcy procedures by establishing a "hierarchisation" there of that is relatively similar to the European system. However, the Canadian project does not achieve the goal of universality as well as does the European regulation 1346/2000 with respect to equal treatment between local creditors and foreign creditors. If the Model Law offers all States the considerable practical utility for many incidences of international co-operation, the harmonization of international bankruptcy will depend on the adoption of the Model Law in various domestic legislations. Although several countries have inserted this model in their legislation on bankruptcy, it is not yet possible, at the present time, to speak of an international law of bankruptcy.

An increase in economic globalisation and international trade the past two decades has amounted to an increase in the number of multinational enterprises that conduct business, own assets and have debt in various jurisdictions around the world. This, coupled with the recent worldwide economic recession, has inevitably caused the increased occurrence of multinational financial default, also known as cross–border insolvency (CBI). CBI refers to the situation where insolvency proceedings are initiated in one jurisdiction with regard to a debtor’s estate and the debtor also has property, debt or both in at least one other jurisdiction. When a multinational enterprise is in financial distress, the structure of such an enterprise poses significant challenges to the question of how to address its insolvency. This is due to the fact that, although the multinational enterprise is found globally in different jurisdictions around the world, the laws addressing its liquidation are local. The possibility of restructuring the multinational enterprise or liquidating it in order the satisfy creditor claims optimally depends greatly upon the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the financial distress of that multinational enterprise. The legal response to this problem has produced two important international instruments which were designed to address key issues associated with CBI. Firstly, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency in 1997, which has been adopted by nineteen countries including the United States of America (in the form of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code) and South Africa (in the form of the Cross–Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000). Secondly, the European Union adopted the European Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC Regulation) in 2000. These two instruments address the management of general default by a debtor and are aimed at providing a legal framework which seeks to enhance legal certainty, cooperation, coordination and harmonization between states in CBI matters throughout the world. After discussing the viewpoints of various writers, it seems clear that “modified universalism” is the correct approach towards CBI matters globally. This is mainly due to the fact that the main international instruments currently dealing with CBI matters are all based upon “modified universalism”. By looking at various EU and US case law it is also evident that, although there is currently still no established test for the determination of the “centre of main interest” (COMI) of a debtor–company under Chapter 15, there is a difference in the approach adopted by courts in the EU and those in the US in this regard. This dissertation further discusses the requirements for a debtor–company to possess an “establishment” for the purpose of opening foreign non–main insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction as well as the choice–of–law considerations in CBI matters. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

An increase in economic globalisation and international trade the past two decades has amounted to an increase in the number of multinational enterprises that conduct business, own assets and have debt in various jurisdictions around the world. This, coupled with the recent worldwide economic recession, has inevitably caused the increased occurrence of multinational financial default, also known as cross–border insolvency (CBI). CBI refers to the situation where insolvency proceedings are initiated in one jurisdiction with regard to a debtor’s estate and the debtor also has property, debt or both in at least one other jurisdiction. When a multinational enterprise is in financial distress, the structure of such an enterprise poses significant challenges to the question of how to address its insolvency. This is due to the fact that, although the multinational enterprise is found globally in different jurisdictions around the world, the laws addressing its liquidation are local. The possibility of restructuring the multinational enterprise or liquidating it in order the satisfy creditor claims optimally depends greatly upon the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the financial distress of that multinational enterprise. The legal response to this problem has produced two important international instruments which were designed to address key issues associated with CBI. Firstly, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency in 1997, which has been adopted by nineteen countries including the United States of America (in the form of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code) and South Africa (in the form of the Cross–Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000). Secondly, the European Union adopted the European Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC Regulation) in 2000. These two instruments address the management of general default by a debtor and are aimed at providing a legal framework which seeks to enhance legal certainty, cooperation, coordination and harmonization between states in CBI matters throughout the world. After discussing the viewpoints of various writers, it seems clear that “modified universalism” is the correct approach towards CBI matters globally. This is mainly due to the fact that the main international instruments currently dealing with CBI matters are all based upon “modified universalism”. By looking at various EU and US case law it is also evident that, although there is currently still no established test for the determination of the “centre of main interest” (COMI) of a debtor–company under Chapter 15, there is a difference in the approach adopted by courts in the EU and those in the US in this regard. This dissertation further discusses the requirements for a debtor–company to possess an “establishment” for the purpose of opening foreign non–main insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction as well as the choice–of–law considerations in CBI matters. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.