Mauritius vs Saint Kitts and Nevis: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Mauritius
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
How they compare
Mauritius currently reports 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Saint Kitts and Nevis, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Mauritius ahead.
Mauritius ranks 7th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 7th of 191 countries.
Mauritius has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mauritius | Saint Kitts and Nevis | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.29 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | 1.29 DB15-20 methodology | Mauritius |
| 2010s | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 1.8 DB15-20 methodology | 1.2 DB15-20 methodology | Mauritius |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4), Mauritius or Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- Mauritius, at 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Saint Kitts and Nevis as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Mauritius and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Mauritius ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritius and Saint Kitts and Nevis?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Mauritius and Saint Kitts and Nevis rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Mauritius ranks 7th and Saint Kitts and Nevis ranks 7th 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.