Sri Lanka vs Vanuatu: Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6)
Resolving insolvency: Management of debtor's assets index (0-6) over time
- Sri Lanka
- Vanuatu
How they compare
Sri Lanka currently reports 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Vanuatu, a difference of 0 DB15-20 methodology.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Vanuatu ahead.
Sri Lanka ranks 130th and Vanuatu ranks 130th of 191 countries.
Sri Lanka has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Sri Lanka | Vanuatu | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.43 DB15-20 methodology | 2 DB15-20 methodology | 0.4286 DB15-20 methodology | Sri Lanka |
| 2010s | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 2.4 DB15-20 methodology | 0.6 DB15-20 methodology | Sri Lanka |
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), Sri Lanka or Vanuatu?
- Sri Lanka, at 3 DB15-20 methodology against 3 DB15-20 methodology in Vanuatu as of 2019.
- What is the difference in resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6) between Sri Lanka and Vanuatu?
- 0 DB15-20 methodology, with Sri Lanka ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sri Lanka and Vanuatu?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Sri Lanka and Vanuatu rank globally for resolving insolvency: management of debtor's assets index (0-6)?
- Sri Lanka ranks 130th and Vanuatu ranks 130th 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
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.