Denmark vs Samoa: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Denmark
- Samoa
How they compare
Denmark currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Samoa, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Samoa has been ahead every year.
Denmark ranks 58th and Samoa ranks 58th of 191 countries.
Samoa has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Denmark | Samoa | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | Samoa |
| 2010s | 0.9 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.1 DB15-20 methodology | Samoa |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Denmark or Samoa?
- Denmark, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Samoa as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Denmark and Samoa?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Denmark ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Denmark and Samoa?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Denmark and Samoa rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Denmark ranks 58th and Samoa ranks 58th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The reorganization proceedings index has three components: (i) whether the reorganization plan is voted on only by the creditors whose rights are modified or affected by the plan; (ii) whether creditors entitled to vote on the plan are divided into classes, each class votes separately and the creditors within each class are treated equally; and (iii) whether the insolvency framework requires that dissenting creditors receive as much under the reorganization plan as they would have received in liquidation.