the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476-77, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Applying the above°factors to the instant case, no evidence exists to support the exercise of jurisdiction to comport with fair play and substantial justice. First, the burden on Killebrew seems unduly great when we consider the extent and circumstances of the contact. Second, although Texas retains an interest in protecting its residents from tort actions, Kil-lebrew’s activity is far too remote to address this consideration. Cf. Memorial Hosp. System v. Fisher Ins., 835 S.W.2d 645, 652 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.)(<HOLDING>). Third, albeit inconvenient for Greeno,
recognizing the same rule in texas courts recognizing strong interest in protecting texas citizens where tort was committed in whole or in part in texas recognizing this texas rule holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding misrepresentation made by outofstate defendant to texas plaintiff who relied on it in texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under longarm statute based on commission of a tort in part in texas