Hong Kong, China vs Palestine, State of: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Hong Kong, China
- Palestine, State of
How they compare
Hong Kong, China currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Palestine, State of, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Palestine, State of has been ahead every year.
Hong Kong, China ranks 87th and Palestine, State of ranks 87th of 191 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hong Kong, China | Palestine, State of | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 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 resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4), Hong Kong, China or Palestine, State of?
- Hong Kong, China, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Palestine, State of as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Hong Kong, China and Palestine, State of?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Hong Kong, China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Palestine, State of?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Hong Kong, China and Palestine, State of rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Hong Kong, China ranks 87th and Palestine, State of ranks 87th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insolvency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.