Bank’s home office was in Delaware, Lehman Bank’s principal place of business also had to be in Delaware, It is true that we are construing the phrase “principal place of business” under New York law, not federal law. Invoking New York law, Lehman Holdings argues that a fact issue exists, pointing to evidence that most of Lehman Bank’s executive officers were in New York and that the board of directors met most frequently in New York. In other circumstances, the location of the principal place of business might raise a fact issue under New York law. But for federally chartered ■ savings and loan associations, the term “principal place of business” is a term of art heavily influenced by federal regulations. See Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB v. State Bank Comm’r, 937 A.2d 95, 103 (Del.2007) (<HOLDING>); accord Cortes v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d
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 for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york based in part on lehman banks establishment of its home office in delaware holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that even though lehman banks executive officers were in new york and its board of directors met exclusively in new york lehman bank had its principal office in delaware rather than new york because the term principal office is a term of art