Samoa vs United Kingdom: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Samoa
- United Kingdom
How they compare
Samoa currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in United Kingdom, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, United Kingdom has been ahead every year.
Samoa ranks 55th and United Kingdom ranks 55th of 188 countries.
United Kingdom has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Samoa | United Kingdom | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.1429 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.8571 DB15-20 methodology | United Kingdom |
| 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 United Kingdom?
- Samoa, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in United Kingdom as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Samoa and United Kingdom?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Samoa ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Samoa and United Kingdom?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Samoa and United Kingdom rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Samoa ranks 55th and United Kingdom 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.