subcontractors; and materials used in the construction of the defendant’s facilities were manufactured and moved in interstate commerce. Id. at 147; see also Mesa Operating Ltd. Partnership v. Louisiana Interstate Gas Corp., 797 F.2d 238, 243 (5th Cir.1986) (stating that “[cjitizens of different states engaged in performance of contractual operations in one of those states are engaged in a contract involving commerce under [the fedr eral act]. Such a contract necessitates interstate travel of both personnel and payments. Commerce under the [federal act] is not limited to interstate shipment of goods ... but includes all contracts ‘relating to interstate commerce.’ ”) (quoting Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 401 n. 7, 87 S.Ct. at 1805 n. 7); Snyder v. Smith, 736 F.2d 409, 418 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, courts have treated
holding that a real estate partnership involved commerce within the meaning of the act where the real estate at issue was located in texas and the partners lived in illinois maintained a bank account in illinois and borrowed money from an illinois bank holding the real estate sale proceeds holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license holding that a bank officer who obtained for his own benefit a profit participation in a real estate venture in exchange for loaning bank money misappropriated a corporate asset