Chinese Taipei vs Ukraine: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4)
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) over time
- Chinese Taipei
- Ukraine
How they compare
Chinese Taipei currently reports 2 DB15-20 methodology against 2 DB15-20 methodology in Ukraine, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Chinese Taipei ahead.
Chinese Taipei ranks 40th and Ukraine ranks 40th of 190 countries.
Chinese Taipei has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Chinese Taipei | Ukraine | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | 1 DB15-20 methodology | Chinese Taipei |
| 2010s | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 1.7 DB15-20 methodology | 0.3 DB15-20 methodology | Chinese Taipei |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4), Chinese Taipei or Ukraine?
- Chinese Taipei, at 2 DB15-20 methodology against 2 DB15-20 methodology in Ukraine as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) between Chinese Taipei and Ukraine?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Chinese Taipei ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Chinese Taipei and Ukraine?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Chinese Taipei and Ukraine rank globally for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
- Chinese Taipei ranks 40th and Ukraine ranks 40th of 190 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.