Statizoid

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Slovenia

Slovenia: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 2 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
2 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
30th
of 188 countries
All-time high
2 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
All-time low
2 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

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

00.511.522003201120192003: 2 DB15-20 methodology2004: 2 DB15-20 methodology2005: 2 DB15-20 methodology2006: 2 DB15-20 methodology2007: 2 DB15-20 methodology2008: 2 DB15-20 methodology2009: 2 DB15-20 methodology2010: 2 DB15-20 methodology2011: 2 DB15-20 methodology2012: 2 DB15-20 methodology2013: 2 DB15-20 methodology2014: 2 DB15-20 methodology2015: 2 DB15-20 methodology2016: 2 DB15-20 methodology2017: 2 DB15-20 methodology2018: 2 DB15-20 methodology2019: 2 DB15-20 methodology

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

Analysis

Slovenia recorded 2 DB15-20 methodology for reorganization proceedings index (0-3) 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 Slovenia peaked at 2 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 2 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Slovenia 30th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the top quarter.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 2 DB15-20 methodology 2 DB15-20 methodology 2 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 2 DB15-20 methodology 2 DB15-20 methodology 2 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Slovenia

  1. 30 Brazil 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 30 Afghanistan 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 30 Argentina 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 30 Armenia 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 30 Bahrain 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 30 Chile 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 30 Estonia 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 30 Israel 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 30 Kyrgyzstan 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 30 Nepal 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 30 Saudi Arabia 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 30 Spain 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 30 United Arab Emirates 2 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 30 Vietnam 2 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Slovenia

All data for Slovenia →

Frequently asked questions

What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Slovenia?
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Slovenia was 2 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Slovenia?
The highest recorded value was 2 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Slovenia?
The lowest recorded value was 2 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Slovenia rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Slovenia ranks 30th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Slovenia?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Slovenia 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.