Statizoid

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya

Kenya: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile

Latest (2019)
3 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
1st
of 188 countries
All-time high
3 DB15-20 methodology
in 2018
All-time low
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya, 2003–2019

01232003201120192003: 0 DB15-20 methodology2004: 0 DB15-20 methodology2005: 0 DB15-20 methodology2006: 0 DB15-20 methodology2007: 0 DB15-20 methodology2008: 0 DB15-20 methodology2009: 0 DB15-20 methodology2010: 0 DB15-20 methodology2011: 0 DB15-20 methodology2012: 0 DB15-20 methodology2013: 0 DB15-20 methodology2014: 0 DB15-20 methodology2015: 0 DB15-20 methodology2016: 2 DB15-20 methodology2017: 2 DB15-20 methodology2018: 3 DB15-20 methodology2019: 3 DB15-20 methodology

Source: World Bank. Measured in DB15-20 methodology.

Analysis

In 2019, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya stood at 3 DB15-20 methodology. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.

Over the whole period, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya peaked at 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2018 and was at its lowest, 0 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Kenya 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top 10%.

The series is highly variable year to year, so single readings are best treated with caution.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 1 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 3 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Kenya

  1. 1 United States 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 1 Japan 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 1 Albania 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 1 Cambodia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 1 Croatia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 1 Czechia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 1 Germany 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 1 Italy 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 1 South Korea 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 1 Micronesia (country) 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 1 Montenegro 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 1 North Macedonia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 1 Philippines 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 1 Poland 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 1 Portugal 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 1 Puerto Rico 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 1 Rwanda 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 1 Serbia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 1 Slovakia 3 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 1 Thailand 3 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Kenya

All data for Kenya →

Frequently asked questions

What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya?
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Kenya was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Kenya?
The highest recorded value was 3 DB15-20 methodology in 2018.
What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Kenya?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Kenya rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Kenya ranks 1st out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Where does this Kenya 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

Indicator
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) (DB15-20 methodology)
Unit
DB15-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 3,230 data points, 2003–2019
Last refreshed

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.