speculative at the time Coleridge acquired Greystone, Defendants did not assume a known risk of control group liability at that time. The Fund’s argument, thus, becomes nothing more than an assertion of personal jurisdiction based solely on corporate affiliation or stock ownership. That assertion is not sufficient to show minimum contacts even under the ruling in Asahi Tec. This leaves the Fund with no legal authority for the proposition that the acquisition of a company that participates in a multiemployer pension plan is, by itself, sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the acquiring company and no reasoned argument to support the notion that such a rule would comport with due process. See Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 213-16, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, the Seventh Circuit and
holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that a property interest sufficient to support a due process claim requires a binding assurance and not a mere unilateral expectation holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process holding due process requires that jurisdiction be based on more than a mere ownership interest in an entity located in the forum holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials