preferences under § 547 in a case under chapters 7 or 11 because the 90-day avoidance period has lapsed; all of these attachments could have been avoided if a case under chapters 7 or 11 had been filed when the chapter 15 petitions were filed. 3 . In addition to the Notice of Intent filed on ECF on February 24, 2009, counsel for the foreign representative stated such intent at a hearing on February 20, 2009. 4 . The Objecting Creditors argue that § 31 of the Danish Bankruptcy Act should not be given extraterritorial effect. They did not offer evidence on this issue of Danish law. Indeed, other countries' foreign laws are often given extraterritorial effect by U.S. courts. See Adinolfi v. Empire Marble & Granite, Inc. (In re Rosacometta, S.r.L), 336 B.R. 557, 564 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Court's disposition in this
holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect recognizing italys automatic stay in ancillary proceeding in the us and ordering avoidance of garnishment holding rule 11 sanction proceeding was exempt from automatic stay