Statizoid

Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania

Lithuania: Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) was 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
2.5 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
52nd
of 190 countries
All-time high
2.5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
All-time low
2.5 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania, 2003–2019

00.511.522.52003201120192003: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2004: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2005: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2006: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2007: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2008: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2009: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2010: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2011: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2012: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2013: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2014: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2015: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2016: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2017: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2018: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology2019: 2.5 DB15-20 methodology

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

Analysis

The most recent figure for resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania is 2.5 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, resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania peaked at 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 2.5 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

Lithuania ranks 52nd of 190 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Averages by decade

DecadeAverage LowestHighest Years
2000s 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 7
2010s 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 2.5 DB15-20 methodology 10

Countries ranked near Lithuania

  1. 52 Pakistan 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 52 Mexico 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 52 Russia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 52 Brazil 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 52 Argentina 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 52 Armenia, Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 52 Australia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 52 Austria 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 52 Bahrain, Kingdom of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 52 Barbados 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 52 Belgium 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 52 Bolivia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 52 Bulgaria 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 52 Burundi 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 52 Cabo Verde 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 52 Canada 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 52 Chile 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 52 Czechia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 52 Djibouti 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 52 Dominican Republic 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 52 Egypt, Arab Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 52 Estonia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 52 Georgia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 52 Greece 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 52 Grenada 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 52 Hungary 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 52 Iceland 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 52 Jamaica 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 52 Jordan 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 52 Korea 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 52 Kosovo 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 52 Latvia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 52 Liberia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 52 Luxembourg 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 52 Malta 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 52 Micronesia, Federated States of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 52 Moldova 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 52 Montenegro 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 52 Mozambique, Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 52 Netherlands 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 52 Norway 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 52 Panama 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 52 Paraguay 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 52 Peru 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 52 Philippines 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 52 Romania 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  47. 52 Samoa 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  48. 52 Serbia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  49. 52 Seychelles 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  50. 52 Slovenia 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  51. 52 South Sudan, Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  52. 52 Sri Lanka 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  53. 52 St. Kitts and Nevis 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  54. 52 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  55. 52 Suriname 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  56. 52 Taiwan Province of China 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  57. 52 Thailand 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  58. 52 Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  59. 52 Trinidad and Tobago 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  60. 52 Uganda 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  61. 52 Uruguay 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  62. 52 Uzbekistan, Republic of 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare
  63. 52 Vietnam 2.5 DB15-20 methodology compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Lithuania

All data for Lithuania →

Frequently asked questions

What is resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania?
Resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania was 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Lithuania?
The highest recorded value was 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
What is the lowest resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) recorded in Lithuania?
The lowest recorded value was 2.5 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Lithuania rank for resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3)?
Lithuania ranks 52nd out of 190 countries with data for 2019.
Is resolving insolvency: commencement of proceedings index (0-3) rising or falling in Lithuania?
Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Lithuania data come from?
The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Resolving insolvency: Commencement of 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).

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania. Statizoid. Retrieved 19 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/resolving-insolvency-commencement-of-proceedings-index-0-3-db15-20-methodology/lithuania/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/resolving-insolvency-commencement-of-proceedings-index-0-3-db15-20-methodology/lithuania/">Resolving insolvency: Commencement of proceedings index (0-3) in Lithuania</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Resolving insolvency: Commencement of 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 commencement of proceedings index has three components: (i) whether debtors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; (ii) whether creditors can initiate both liquidation and reorganization proceedings; and (iii) what standard is used for commence­ment of insolvency proceedings.