Malta vs Namibia: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) over time
- Malta
- Namibia
How they compare
Malta currently reports 2 DB15-20 methodology against 2 DB15-20 methodology in Namibia, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
Across all 17 years both countries report, Namibia has been ahead every year.
Malta ranks 150th and Namibia ranks 150th of 190 countries.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malta | Namibia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
| 2010s | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 0 DB15-20 methodology | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6), Malta or Namibia?
- Malta, at 2 DB15-20 methodology against 2 DB15-20 methodology in Namibia as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) between Malta and Namibia?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Malta ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malta and Namibia?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Malta and Namibia rank globally for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
- Malta ranks 150th and Namibia ranks 150th of 190 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The management of debtor's assets index has six components: (i) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can continue performing contracts essential to the debtor’s survival; (ii) whether the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf) can reject overly burdensome contracts; (iii) whether undervalued transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (iv) whether transactions entered into before commencement of insolvency proceedings that give preference to one or several creditors can be avoided after proceedings are initiated; (v) whether the insolvency framework includes specific provisions that allow the debtor (or an insolvency representative on its behalf), after commencement of insolvency proceedings, to obtain financing necessary to function during the proceedings; and (vi) whether post-commencement finance receives priority over ordinary unsecured creditors during distribution of assets.