India vs Sudan: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)

India
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Sudan
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
India rank
133rd
Sudan rank
133rd

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time

  • India
  • Sudan
00.20.40.60.81200320112019

How they compare

India currently reports 0 DB15-20 methodology against 0 DB15-20 methodology in Sudan, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Sudan ahead.

India ranks 133rd and Sudan ranks 133rd of 188 countries.

India has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade India Sudan Difference Ahead
2000s 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology
2010s 0.2 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0.2 DB15-20 methodology India

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), India or Sudan?
India, at 0 DB15-20 methodology against 0 DB15-20 methodology in Sudan as of 2019.
What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between India and Sudan?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with India ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for India and Sudan?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do India and Sudan rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
India ranks 133rd and Sudan ranks 133rd of 188 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

Indicator
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,230 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

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.