here. Belford also argues that the Court should not exercise personal jurisdiction over it because it has no physical presence in Michigan, only a small percentage of its business stems from Michigan residents, and its relationship with its customers is governed by Panamanian law. Even assuming these facts to be true, they do not carry the day in light of the analysis above. See Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (“[jurisdiction ... may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum State (emphasis in original)”); Neogen, 282 F.3d at 886-887 (exercising personal jurisdiction over a defendant despite the fact that a very small percentage of its customers resided in the forum state); Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 482, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Belford argues that the Court cannot
recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that directing a tort at texas does not establish specific personal jurisdiction because it focus on relationship between plaintiff forum and litigation rather than defendant forum and litigation holding that choiceoflaw provisions are alone insufficient to establish jurisdiction although they can reinforce a deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction holding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident auto distributor whose only connection to the forum resulted from a customers decision to drive there failed to provide the defendant with clear notice that it would be subject to suit in the forum state and thus an opportunity to alleviate the risk of burden some litigation there