rationale applies to limited partners who, like shareholders, are passive investors with limited liability. See Regency Hous. & Drilling Ltd. Partnership I v. Cohen, [C.A. No. 89C-DE-70] (Del.Super.Ct. Sept. 11, 1991) [ (not reported in A.2d) ] (‘Inasmuch as a limited partnership represents a security investment analogous to the purchase of stock in a corporation, plaintiffs contention ' [that defendant’s status as a limited partner satisfies the minimum contacts test] is prohibited by [Shaffer v. Heitner].’); see also Generate Bank, New York Branch v. Choudury, 776 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y.1991), rev’d on other grounds, 779 F.Supp. 303 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (granting nonresident limited partner’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction); Sender v. Powell, 902 P.2d 947 (Colo.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); Renda v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 538
holding that the massachusetts longarm statute provides for jurisdiction over a nonresident personal representative when the decedent had sufficient contacts with the forum such that the decedent would have been subject to personal jurisdiction had he lived holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant holding that defendant merely held a passive interest in the partnership and that such contact was too insubstantial to provide the requisite contacts with colorado to allow the constitutional exercise of longarm jurisdiction over him holding that standing alone defendants 4 million in sales in the forum state over a sevenyear period may not have been sufficient to support the exercise of general jurisdiction but that the numerous other contacts with the forum in the case including advertising relationships with dealers and more than 150 visits tipped the balance and led the court to conclude that there were sufficient contacts to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction