that Minera Yanacocha could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the District for actions which occurred in Peru pursuant to a contract governed by Peruvian law. Id. at 513. As a joint venture that is partially owned by the IFC, Minera Yanacocha had little choice but to communicate with IFC personnel to maintain its financial viability. See, e.g., Fan-del, 345 F.2d at 89 (“Washington presents many business organizations with special needs for a continuous and ponderable physical presence there, ... and that the purpose of Congress was not to make that presence in every case a base for the assertion of personal jurisdiction.”); see also In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria on November 11, 2000, No. 1428 (SAS), 01 Civ. 7342, 2003 WL 1807148, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.4, 2003) (<HOLDING>) (citing Clarke v. Fonix Corp., No. 98 Civ.
holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that a foreign defendant was not present in new york for the purposes of jurisdiction simply because it engaged in financing transactions there holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1