San Marino vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- San Marino
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
San Marino currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
San Marino ranks 58th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 58th of 191 countries.
San Marino has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | San Marino | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.5714 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5714 DB15-20 methodology | San Marino |
| 2010s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.6 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4 DB15-20 methodology | San Marino |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), San Marino or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- San Marino, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between San Marino and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with San Marino ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for San Marino and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do San Marino and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- San Marino ranks 58th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 58th 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.