Papua New Guinea vs Sri Lanka: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Papua New Guinea ahead.
Papua New Guinea ranks 87th and Sri Lanka ranks 87th of 191 countries.
Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4286 DB15-20 methodology | 0.5714 DB15-20 methodology | Papua New Guinea |
| 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), Papua New Guinea or Sri Lanka?
- Papua New Guinea, at 1 DB15-20 methodology against 1 DB15-20 methodology in Sri Lanka as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 87th and Sri Lanka 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.