Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); and Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) are only the most obvious. Certainly in some actions, of a type that were formerly classified as in rem or even quasi in rem, the legal presence of property in the forum state together with the doctrine of virtual representation, are sufficient to bind absent interest holders, so long as constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to be heard are afforded to such persons. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (establishing what constitutes adequate notice to meet due process requirements sufficient to bind absent cestu que trust); Hynson v. Drummond Coal Co., Del. Ch., 601 A.2d 570 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Nationwide class actions in state courts are
holding when defendant raised affirmative defense of total failure of consideration that even assuming the acquired stock became worthless the worthlessness of the stock did not constitute a failure of consideration when in exchange for note defendant received 2500 shares of stock   as well as all the rights privileges and benefits of a shareholder director and officer emphasis supplied punctuation omitted holding in a class action suit that owning stock in a corporation creates a sufficient nexus between a nonresident shareholder and the jurisdiction of incoiporation to bind him to a judicial determination of rights that attach to that stock eg does this class of stock have a right to vote including the right to hold fiduciaries to account providing that notice and opportunity to be heard are provided holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale holding stock transfer restriction in corporate bylaws did not prevent levy against and sale of stock by third party in order to pay judgment