New Zealand vs Sri Lanka: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- New Zealand
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
New Zealand currently reports 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Sri Lanka has been ahead every year.
New Zealand ranks 89th and Sri Lanka ranks 89th of 191 countries.
Sri Lanka has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | New Zealand | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | 0.2143 DB15-20 methodology | 0.0714 DB15-20 methodology | Sri Lanka |
| 2010s | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), New Zealand or Sri Lanka?
- New Zealand, at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Sri Lanka as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between New Zealand and Sri Lanka?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with New Zealand ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for New Zealand and Sri Lanka?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do New Zealand and Sri Lanka rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- New Zealand ranks 89th and Sri Lanka ranks 89th 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.