released funds through New York banks acting as agents for various corporations; and (4) a Lloyds’ employee visited three Tennessee banks in an unsuccessful attempt to generate business for Lloyds. These contacts are not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction over Lloyds. First, Lloyds’ accounts with Tennessee addresses do not support the court’s ruling. Lloyds points out that these 108 customers represented a mere 0.000675% of Lloyds 16 million account holders, and none of those accounts were opened after 2002. The fact that 108 account holders have Tennessee addresses is merely fortuitousLloyds markets and sells its accounts in the United Kingdom, not in Tennessee. Further, no me Tennessee banks justify the exercise of general jur vs., Inc., 918 F.2d 1039, 1045-46 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The foregoing contacts amount to nothing more
holding that a ceos trip to the forum state to negotiate a services contract did not constitute the continuous and systematic general business contacts required to subject the corporation to general jurisdiction in the state holding that thirteen business trips of short duration over eighteen months was not continuous and systematic solicitation of business in the state to justify general jurisdiction holding that 155 trips to texas by foreign corporation personnel over a tenyear period did not support general jurisdiction because evidence did not establish a general business presence holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state recognizing general jurisdiction where availment is systematic and continuous