proceeding commenced. Only one of those creditors— Dormin Shipping — has objected to the relief sought by the foreign representative. Dormin is free to argue to the Danish bankruptcy court that Dormin has a superior claim to the amount it successfully garnished before the Danish bankruptcy commenced. Finally, the Objecting Creditors also assert that even if the Court grants comity to the Danish proceeding, the Rule B attachments should remain in force because comity is not one of the listed grounds for vacating a Rule B attachment under the Second Circuit’s decision in Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 436. But the application of comity very often has the effect of overriding domestic legal doctrines or rules. See, e.g., In re Ephedra Prods. Liab. Litig., 349 B.R. 333, 337 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>); Triton Container Int’l Ltd. v. Cinave S.A.,
holding trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to improper argument about defendants exercise of his right to a jury trial and stating that the prosecution cannot use the defendants exercise of specific fundamental constitutional guarantees against him at trial recognizing canadian order as an exercise of comity even though it overrode a defendants constitutional right to a civil jury trial recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights