Statizoid

Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka: Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ◆ Volatile

Latest (2019)
0.5 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
86th
of 188 countries
All-time high
0.5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2007
All-time low
0 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

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

00.10.20.30.40.52003201120192003: 0 DB15-20 methodology2004: 0 DB15-20 methodology2005: 0 DB15-20 methodology2006: 0 DB15-20 methodology2007: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2008: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2009: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2010: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2011: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2012: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2013: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2014: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2015: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2016: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2017: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2018: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology2019: 0.5 DB15-20 methodology

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

Analysis

The most recent figure for reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Sri Lanka is 0.5 DB15-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 17 years on record.

The figure is unchanged over ten years.

Over the whole period, reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Sri Lanka peaked at 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2007 and was at its lowest, 0 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Sri Lanka 86th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

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

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 0.2143 DB15-20 methodology 0 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 0.5 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Sri Lanka

  1. 86 Indonesia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 86 Australia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 86 Belarus 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 86 Benin 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 86 Burkina Faso 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 86 Cameroon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 86 Central African Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 86 Chad 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 86 Colombia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 86 Comoros 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 86 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 86 Congo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 86 Cote d'Ivoire 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 86 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 86 Equatorial Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 86 Gabon 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 86 Guinea 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 86 Guinea-Bissau 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 86 Hungary 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 86 Jordan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 86 Laos 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 86 Liberia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 86 Lithuania 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 86 Luxembourg 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 86 Madagascar 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 86 Malawi 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 86 Malaysia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 86 Mali 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 86 Mauritius 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 86 Mongolia 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 86 New Zealand 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 86 Niger 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 86 Panama 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 86 Peru 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 86 Senegal 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 86 Seychelles 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 86 Singapore 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 86 South Africa 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 86 South Sudan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 86 Taiwan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 86 Tajikistan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 86 Togo 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 86 Uganda 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 86 Ukraine 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 86 Uzbekistan 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 86 Zimbabwe 0.5 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Sri Lanka

All data for Sri Lanka →

Frequently asked questions

What is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Sri Lanka?
Reorganization proceedings index (0-3) in Sri Lanka was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Sri Lanka?
The highest recorded value was 0.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2007.
What is the lowest reorganization proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Sri Lanka?
The lowest recorded value was 0 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Sri Lanka rank for reorganization proceedings index (0-3)?
Sri Lanka ranks 86th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is reorganization proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Sri Lanka?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is volatile.
Where does this Sri Lanka 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.