Statizoid

Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania

Lithuania: Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)
1 DB15-20 methodology
Change on year
unchanged
World rank
84th
of 188 countries
All-time high
1 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
All-time low
1 DB15-20 methodology
in 2003
Years of data
17
2003–2019

Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania, 2003–2019

00.20.40.60.812003201120192003: 1 DB15-20 methodology2004: 1 DB15-20 methodology2005: 1 DB15-20 methodology2006: 1 DB15-20 methodology2007: 1 DB15-20 methodology2008: 1 DB15-20 methodology2009: 1 DB15-20 methodology2010: 1 DB15-20 methodology2011: 1 DB15-20 methodology2012: 1 DB15-20 methodology2013: 1 DB15-20 methodology2014: 1 DB15-20 methodology2015: 1 DB15-20 methodology2016: 1 DB15-20 methodology2017: 1 DB15-20 methodology2018: 1 DB15-20 methodology2019: 1 DB15-20 methodology

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

Analysis

In 2019, resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania stood at 1 DB15-20 methodology. 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: creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania peaked at 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003 and was at its lowest, 1 DB15-20 methodology, in 2003.

That places Lithuania 84th out of 188 countries with data for 2019, putting it in the middle of the range.

Averages by decade

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

Countries ranked near Lithuania

  1. 84 India 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  2. 84 Nigeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  3. 84 Japan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  4. 84 Algeria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  5. 84 Antigua and Barbuda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  6. 84 Argentina 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  7. 84 Armenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  8. 84 Bahamas 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  9. 84 Bahrain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  10. 84 Benin 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  11. 84 Bhutan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  12. 84 Brunei 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  13. 84 Burkina Faso 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  14. 84 Burundi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  15. 84 Cameroon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  16. 84 Central African Republic 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  17. 84 Chad 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  18. 84 Comoros 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  19. 84 Democratic Republic of Congo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  20. 84 Congo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  21. 84 Costa Rica 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  22. 84 Cote d'Ivoire 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  23. 84 Cyprus 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  24. 84 Ecuador 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  25. 84 Equatorial Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  26. 84 Eritrea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  27. 84 Eswatini 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  28. 84 Ethiopia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  29. 84 France 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  30. 84 Gabon 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  31. 84 Greece 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  32. 84 Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  33. 84 Guinea-Bissau 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  34. 84 Haiti 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  35. 84 Honduras 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  36. 84 Hong Kong 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  37. 84 Iran 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  38. 84 Iraq 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  39. 84 Ireland 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  40. 84 Jordan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  41. 84 South Korea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  42. 84 Kuwait 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  43. 84 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  44. 84 Lesotho 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  45. 84 Liberia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  46. 84 Libya 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  47. 84 Luxembourg 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  48. 84 Madagascar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  49. 84 Malawi 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  50. 84 Mali 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  51. 84 Malta 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  52. 84 Montenegro 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  53. 84 Namibia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  54. 84 Niger 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  55. 84 Oman 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  56. 84 Papua New Guinea 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  57. 84 Qatar 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  58. 84 Samoa 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  59. 84 Senegal 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  60. 84 Sierra Leone 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  61. 84 Singapore 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  62. 84 Slovenia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  63. 84 Solomon Islands 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  64. 84 South Sudan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  65. 84 Spain 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  66. 84 Sri Lanka 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  67. 84 Syria 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  68. 84 Tajikistan 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  69. 84 Tanzania 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  70. 84 Togo 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  71. 84 Tonga 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  72. 84 Tunisia 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  73. 84 Uganda 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  74. 84 United Arab Emirates 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  75. 84 Vanuatu 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  76. 84 Venezuela 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  77. 84 Vietnam 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  78. 84 Palestine 1 DB15-20 methodology compare
  79. 84 Yemen 1 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: creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania?
Resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) in Lithuania was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Lithuania?
The highest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
What is the lowest resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) recorded in Lithuania?
The lowest recorded value was 1 DB15-20 methodology in 2003.
How does Lithuania rank for resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4)?
Lithuania ranks 84th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is resolving insolvency: creditor participation index (0-4) 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: Creditor participation index (0-4) (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
Resolving insolvency: Creditor participation index (0-4) (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 creditor participation index has four components: (i) whether creditors appoint the insolvency representative or approve, ratify or reject the appointment of the insolvency representative; (ii) Whether creditors are required to approve the sale of substantial assets of the debtor in the course of insol­vency proceedings; (iii) Whether an individual creditor has the right to access financial information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings; and (iv) Whether an individual creditor can object to a decision of the court or of the insolvency representative to approve or reject claims against the debtor brought by the creditor itself and by other creditors.