nevertheless be asserted if a defendant has “purposefully directed” its activities toward the forum state, and if the lawsuit is based upon injuries that “arise out of’ or “relate to” the defendant’s contacts with the state. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Shepherd argues IOC purposefully directed its activities at residents of Colorado by requiring USOC to abide by the Olympic Charter and by providing funding for administrative costs. The purposeful availment requirement is not satisfied by “attenuated contacts.” Id. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Shepherd has not made a prima facie showing that these contacts are sufficient to be considered purposeful availment. Moreover, the second requirement, that the litigation arises out of the defendant’ 3d 1269, 1273-74 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Second, although the Olympic Charter calls on
holding that a federal court must order arbitration once it is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored holding something more than denial of receipt is required holding a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence for the court to conclude a holding company has been brought into court for something it has done rather than for something its subsidiary has done holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct