Sao Tome and Principe vs Ukraine: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)

Sao Tome and Principe
4 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Ukraine
4 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe rank
97th
Ukraine rank
97th

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

  • Sao Tome and Principe
  • Ukraine
01234200320112019

How they compare

Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 4 DB15-20 methodology against 4 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 Sao Tome and Principe ahead.

Sao Tome and Principe ranks 97th and Ukraine ranks 97th of 191 countries.

Sao Tome and Principe has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Sao Tome and Principe Ukraine Difference Ahead
2000s 4 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 1 DB15-20 methodology Sao Tome and Principe
2010s 4 DB15-20 methodology 3.7 DB15-20 methodology 0.3 DB15-20 methodology Sao Tome and Principe

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), Sao Tome and Principe or Ukraine?
Sao Tome and Principe, at 4 DB15-20 methodology against 4 DB15-20 methodology in Ukraine as of 2019.
What is the difference in resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) between Sao Tome and Principe and Ukraine?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sao Tome and Principe and Ukraine?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Sao Tome and Principe and Ukraine rank globally for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
Sao Tome and Principe ranks 97th and Ukraine ranks 97th 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

Sao Tome and Principe vs Ukraine: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6). Statizoid. Retrieved 08 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/resolving-insolvency-management-of-debtor-s-assets-index-0-6-db15-20-methodology/sao-tome-and-principe/ukraine/

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/sao-tome-and-principe/ukraine/">Sao Tome and Principe vs Ukraine: 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.