Court made several findings that undermine plaintiffs’ general personal jurisdiction arguments with respect to NCB, including that: (1) “[njeither NCB’s office or that of [SNCB] was in existence at the time plaintiffs commenced their actions”; (2) “[p]laintiffs’ contention [that SNCB continued to operate after it was officially closed in early 2001] is, at best, mere speculation, unsupported by the relevant factual circumstances”; (3) “[t]he supporting exhibits submitted by plaintiffs do not demonstrate, nor even give rise to a reasonable inference, that NCB maintained an aviation division or ... derived revenue from aviation-related activities in the United States”; and (4) “[t]he dubious and Wiese Sudameries, No. 03 Civ. 1681(LAP), 2004 WL 2199547, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2004) (<HOLDING>). In these circumstances, we agree with the
holding that an africanamerican investment advisor who accompanied two clients into a bank could assert a  51 claim alleging discrimination against the bank even though his clients were the actual customers of the bank holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding that foreign corporate defendants purchases and attendant activity in state were insufficient to confer texas with general jurisdiction