Samoa vs San Marino: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Samoa
- San Marino
How they compare
Samoa currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in San Marino, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, San Marino has been ahead every year.
Samoa ranks 55th and San Marino ranks 55th of 188 countries.
San Marino has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Samoa | San Marino | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5714 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4286 DB15-20 methodology | San Marino |
| 2010s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 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), Samoa or San Marino?
- Samoa, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in San Marino as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Samoa and San Marino?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Samoa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Samoa and San Marino?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Samoa and San Marino rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Samoa ranks 55th and San Marino ranks 55th 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.