in the record supports the district court’s assumption that, merely because these accounts had Tennessee addresses on record, Lloyds “repeatedly transferred the Tennessee customers’ funds as directed, provided customers with bank statements of account, and likely offered other incidental banking services.” As Lloyds points out, any bank statements sent to Tennessee would have been sent there because the customers listed the account address as Tennessee, not because Lloyds chose to create continuous and substantial consequences in Tennessee. The relationship of these account holders is best characterized as “unilateral,” because Lloyds did not direct contacts at Tennessee. Cf. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Nor do the wire transfers between Lloyds and
holding there was no general jurisdiction even though defendant sent  its chief executive officer to texas for a contract negotiation session accepted into its bank account checks drawn on a bank in texas purchased 4 million of goods and equipment from a company in texas and sent employees to texas for training and technical consultation holding that foreign corporate defendants purchases and attendant activity in state were insufficient to confer texas with general jurisdiction holding that the nonresident defendants acceptance of checks drawn from a texas bank account purchases of helicopters and related training trips did not create general jurisdiction holding that isolated trips to texas more than 1500000 in purchases from texas vendors and two contracts with texas entities were not substantial enough to support general jurisdiction holding nonresident defendant did not submit to general jurisdiction of texas courts merely by executing contract with resident