Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan
Japan: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan, 2003–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan is 3 DB15-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.
Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.
Over the whole period, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan peaked at 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 3 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.
That places Japan 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 7 |
| 2010s | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 3 DB15-20 methodology | 10 |
Countries ranked near Japan
- 1 United States 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Albania 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Cambodia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Croatia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Czechia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Germany 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Italy 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Kenya 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 South Korea 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Micronesia (country) 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Montenegro 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 North Macedonia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Philippines 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Poland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Portugal 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Puerto Rico 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Rwanda 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Serbia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Slovakia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
- 1 Thailand 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Japan
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.98 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 6,290 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - Manure Management 1,291 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 15,608 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 19.52 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Burning - Crop residues 0.0529 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure applied to Soils 1,056 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture 1,475 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Manure applied to 1,056 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - Enteric Fermentat 7,256 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan?
- Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Japan was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Japan?
- The highest recorded value was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Japan?
- The lowest recorded value was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
- How does Japan rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
- Japan ranks 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
- Is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Japan?
- Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
- Where does this Japan data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 17 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The reorganization proceedings index has three components: (i) whether the reorganization plan is voted on only by the creditors whose rights are modified or affected by the plan; (ii) whether creditors entitled to vote on the plan are divided into classes, each class votes separately and the creditors within each class are treated equally; and (iii) whether the insolvency framework requires that dissenting creditors receive as much under the reorganization plan as they would have received in liquidation.