Saint Kitts and Nevis vs Timor-Leste: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3)
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) over time
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Timor-Leste
How they compare
Saint Kitts and Nevis currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Timor-Leste, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Timor-Leste has been ahead every year.
Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 57th and Timor-Leste ranks 57th of 190 countries.
Timor-Leste has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Timor-Leste | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | Timor-Leste |
| 2010s | 0.6 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4 DB15-20 methodology | Timor-Leste |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher reorganization proceedings index (0-3), Saint Kitts and Nevis or Timor-Leste?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Timor-Leste as of 2019.
- What is the difference in reorganization proceedings index (0-3) between Saint Kitts and Nevis and Timor-Leste?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Saint Kitts and Nevis ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saint Kitts and Nevis and Timor-Leste?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Saint Kitts and Nevis and Timor-Leste rank globally for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 57th and Timor-Leste ranks 57th of 190 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.