defendant’s forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there also must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. Id. at 156, Appellees argue that the meetings in Texas do not relate to Hoag-land’s claims. We disagree. Hoagland claims he was induced by ap-pellees’ representations about their qualifications at the board meetings in Houston to enter into the OCTV Operating Agreement and work with OCTV. His fraudulent inducement and fraud claims thus are based in large part on what appellees communicated or failed to communicate at those meetings. See Hoagland, 396 S.W.3d at 195. The operative facts for these claims are events that occurred in Houston. See id.; see also Max Protetch, Inc., 340 S.W.3d at 888 (<HOLDING>). Hoagland’s breach of contract and quantum
holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment holding plaintiffs allegation that defendants committed torts in houston texas was sufficient to bring defendants under the longarm statute for plaintiffs claims of various forms of fraud and negligent misrepresentation holding plaintiffs claims arose out of communications in houston forming the core of the litigation holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that adversary proceeding was core counterclaim where it arose out of the same transaction as the proofs of claim and concerned same agreements