the Massachusetts courts and which could fairly be said to represent an intent by [the guarantor] to reap the benefits of Massachusetts law.” Id. at 934. Moreover, the court stated that “absent any intent by [the guarantor] to exploit the local economy, as has been required not only in prior cases addressing jurisdiction over nonresident guarantors but more generally in cases upholding jurisdiction, we cannot say that [the guarantor], on the basis of its isolated acts, availed itself of the benefits of transacting business in Massachusetts and should reasonably have anticipated being haled into court there.” Id. at 934-35 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297-98, 100 S.Ct. at 567) (citation omitted); see also United Fed. Sav. Bank v. McLean, 694 F.Supp. 529, 535 (C.D.Ill.1988) (<HOLDING>) ; Reverse Vending Assoc. v. Tomra Systems US,
holding that being a guarantor along with making payments in forum state is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor holding that being a guarantor alone is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state