Latvia vs Moldova: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Latvia
- Moldova
How they compare
Latvia currently reports 2.5 DB15-20 methodology against 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in Moldova, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Moldova has been ahead every year.
Latvia ranks 23rd and Moldova ranks 23rd of 188 countries.
Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 2.5 DB15-20 methodology | 2.5 DB15-20 methodology | Moldova |
| 2010s | 2.25 DB15-20 methodology | 2.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0.25 DB15-20 methodology | Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Latvia or Moldova?
- Latvia, at 2.5 DB15-20 methodology against 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in Moldova as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Latvia and Moldova?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Latvia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Moldova?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Latvia and Moldova rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Latvia ranks 23rd and Moldova ranks 23rd 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
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.