Although substantially overruling his judgments, the Privy Council in "Rubin" described Lord Hoffman's opinion in "Cambridge Gas" as "brilliantly expressed" and his speech in "HIH" as "equally brilliant." Although the cases of "HIH", "Cambridge Gas" and "Rubin" are all treated as stating principles of English law, curiously each one of the decisions is a decision of the Privy Council on appeal from another common law jurisdiction ("HIH" was on appeal from Bermuda, "Cambridge Gas" was on appeal from the Isle of Man, and "Rubin" was on appeal from the Cayman Islands). Although there have been some knee-jerk reactions to the "Rubin" decision as heralding the death of modified universalism, it is important to keep the decision in context. Modified universalism as a concept is still a fundamental part of a number of codified legal systems, whatever the limits applied to the common law doctrine in "Rubin". Furthermore, it is important to remember that the series of decisions in "Cambridge Gas", "HIH" and "Rubin" focused on two relatively narrow points of the doctrine, namely: (1) whether a judgment of a foreign court in relation to the proper administration insolvency proceedings should be binding against persons who were not party to that judgment (to which "Rubin" has decisively answered "no"), and (2) whether a creditor who lodges a claim in liquidation proceedings administered by the court is taken to have submitted to the jurisdiction of that court (to which "Rubin" indicates the answer is "maybe"). But treating the "Rubin" decision as stating some wider principle is danger, particularly as the Privy Council was keen to move away from wide statements of principle and focus on narrow and fact specific rules. Indeed, in "Rubin" the Privy Council stressed that the common law still generally favours universalism.