international usage restricts the public policy exception to the most fundamental policies of the United States.” Id. at 336 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 109-31(1) at 109, reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 88,172). While the parties relied extensively on Condor in briefing, the Court concludes that its reasoning is open to question and it is in any event inapplicable to this case since the foreign representative has not commenced an avoidance action under U.S. or foreign law. The Condor court’s conclusion that Congress intended to prevent a foreign representative from bringing avoidance actions based on foreign law is not supported by anything specifically in the legislative history. The court also ignores cases decided under § 304. See, e.g., In re Metzeler, 78 B.R. 674, 677 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1987) (<HOLDING>). As the court in Metzeler stated, Congress is
holding that in the ninth circuit the effects test established in colder v jones 465 us 783 104 sct 1482 79 led2d 804 1984 is met when a foreign defendant does a wrongful act to a foreign resident without regard to whether the actual act is targeted at the forum holding that a foreign representative may assert under  804 only those avoiding powers vested in him by the law applicable to the foreign estate holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law holding that the district court lacked authority to enforce a foreign judgment where the plaintiff filed only an affidavit describing the foreign judgment and not a certified copy of the judgment itself in the first instance