Panama vs Seychelles: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Panama
- Seychelles
How they compare
Panama currently reports 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Seychelles, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Seychelles has been ahead every year.
Panama ranks 86th and Seychelles ranks 86th of 188 countries.
Seychelles has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Panama | Seychelles | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2010s | 0.15 DB15-20 methodology | 0.3 DB15-20 methodology | 0.15 DB15-20 methodology | Seychelles |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Panama or Seychelles?
- Panama, at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology against 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in Seychelles as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Panama and Seychelles?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Panama ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Panama and Seychelles?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Panama and Seychelles rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Panama ranks 86th and Seychelles ranks 86th 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.