Seychelles vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)

Seychelles
5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2019
Seychelles rank
74th
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rank
74th

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

  • Seychelles
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
012345200320112019

How they compare

Seychelles currently reports 5 DB15-20 methodology against 5 DB15-20 methodology in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.

Across all 17 years both countries report, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been ahead every year.

Seychelles ranks 74th and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 74th of 191 countries.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Seychelles United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Difference Ahead
2000s 2 DB15-20 methodology 4.86 DB15-20 methodology 2.86 DB15-20 methodology United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2010s 3.8 DB15-20 methodology 5 DB15-20 methodology 1.2 DB15-20 methodology United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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), Seychelles or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Seychelles, at 5 DB15-20 methodology against 5 DB15-20 methodology in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as of 2019.
What is the difference in resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) between Seychelles and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
0 DB15-20 methodology, with Seychelles ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Seychelles and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
How do Seychelles and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rank globally for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
Seychelles ranks 74th and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ranks 74th 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

Seychelles vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6). Statizoid. Retrieved 04 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/resolving-insolvency-management-of-debtor-s-assets-index-0-6-db15-20-methodology/seychelles/united-kingdom/

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/seychelles/united-kingdom/">Seychelles vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: 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.