bankruptcy proceeding may recover substantially less. 18 . The Court has doubts about the efficacy of each step of the Objecting Creditors’ strategy. The argument that the Danish court has no personal jurisdiction is questionable, but it is one for the Danish or U.K. courts to decide. See Ecoban Fin. Ltd. v. Grupo Acerero Del Norte, SA. de C.V., 108 F.Supp.2d 349, 354 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (“Every person who deals with a foreign corporation impliedly subjects himself to such laws of the foreign government .... To all intents and purposes, he submits his contract with the corporation to such a policy of the foreign government ....'') (citing Canada S. R.R. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U.S. 527, 537-38, 3 S.Ct. 363, 27 L.Ed. 1020 (1883)); Sinatra v. Gucci (In re Gucci), 309 B.R. 679, 684 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). Their ability to obtain English judgments on
holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction to decide its jurisdiction under the transitional rules of the iirira holding that since property is located in foreign jurisdiction it is for that court to decide its fate holding that it is not holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct