that the state may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant even if the action is unrelated to the defendant’s contacts with the state.” Intera, 428 F.3d at 615 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Lloyds claims that the district court erred in concluding that there was general jurisdiction because Lloyds does not maintain any office to transact business in Tennessee, is not registered to do business in Tennessee, has no employees in Tennessee, owns no property in Tennessee, and did not solicit any business in Tennessee. In holding that Harris met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of general jurisdiction, the district court relied on the following contacts: ntinental Illinois Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 689 F.Supp. 564, 567-68 (E.D.N.C.1988) (<HOLDING>); see generally Third Nat’l Bank in Nashville
holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc  522b holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc  522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina holding that north carolina has jurisdiction over a claim arising from an accident in mississippi because the original offer of employment was accepted over the telephone while the employee was in north carolina holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce