issuance of stock in California as evidenced in the provisions of the Corporate Securities Law), we look to whether the other two Sibley prerequisites for exercising limited personal jurisdiction exist in this case. The trial court specifically found neither (nor did it find a McGee -type statutorily defined interest in providing its residents redress against out-of-state employers who hired them to work out of state). 1. Anticipated Economic Benefits Appellee asserts: “That the defendant may not have derived any income from the contract with Mr. Guardino is not controlling.” Brief at 11 (citing Ault v. Dinner for Two, Inc., 27 Cal.App.3d 145, 151, 103 Cal.Rptr. 572, 576 (1972)). This is misguided. Anticipated benefit, not actual profit, is the determinant as the court in Ault (<HOLDING>) stated, “that the corporate defendant
holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources holding that jurisdiction proper if california income expected holding that in california one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of   net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all   fishing sources holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts