New Zealand vs Peru: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- New Zealand
- Peru
How they compare
New Zealand currently reports 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Peru, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Peru has been ahead every year.
New Zealand ranks 88th and Peru ranks 88th of 190 countries.
Peru has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Zealand | Peru | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0.3571 DB15-20 methodology | Peru |
| 2010s | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | β |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), New Zealand or Peru?
- New Zealand, at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Peru as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between New Zealand and Peru?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with New Zealand ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Zealand and Peru?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do New Zealand and Peru rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- New Zealand ranks 88th and Peru ranks 88th of 190 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.