Micronesia, Federated States of vs Timor-Leste: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)

Micronesia, Federated States of
6 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Timor-Leste
6 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Micronesia, Federated States of rank
1st
Timor-Leste rank
1st

Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) over time

  • Micronesia, Federated States of
  • Timor-Leste
0246200320112019

How they compare

Micronesia, Federated States of currently reports 6 DB15-20 methodology against 6 DB15-20 methodology in Timor-Leste, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.

Across all 17 years both countries report, Timor-Leste has been ahead every year.

Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 1st and Timor-Leste ranks 1st of 191 countries.

Timor-Leste has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Micronesia, Federated States of Timor-Leste Difference Ahead
2000s 3.43 DB15-20 methodology 6 DB15-20 methodology 2.57 DB15-20 methodology Timor-Leste
2010s 6 DB15-20 methodology 6 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), Micronesia, Federated States of or Timor-Leste?
Micronesia, Federated States of, at 6 DB15-20 methodology against 6 DB15-20 methodology in Timor-Leste as of 2019.
What is the difference in resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) between Micronesia, Federated States of and Timor-Leste?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with Micronesia, Federated States of ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Micronesia, Federated States of and Timor-Leste?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Micronesia, Federated States of and Timor-Leste rank globally for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
Micronesia, Federated States of ranks 1st and Timor-Leste ranks 1st of 191 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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Micronesia, Federated States of vs Timor-Leste: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6). Statizoid. Retrieved 31 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/resolving-insolvency-management-of-debtor-s-assets-index-0-6-db15-20-methodology/micronesia-fed-sts/timor-leste/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/resolving-insolvency-management-of-debtor-s-assets-index-0-6-db15-20-methodology/micronesia-fed-sts/timor-leste/">Micronesia, Federated States of vs Timor-Leste: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 3,247 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

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.