prior communications, negotiations, or course of dealing between Zabel and M/I Title. Nevertheless, Compass asserts that Zabel availed itself of the benefit of Texas’ laws because it indorsed the Check, thereby warranting its validity, and sent it into the banking channels to be paid out of the account of a Texas resident. It is not disputed that the injurious effect of Zabel’s actions was felt by a Texas resident in Texas. The face of the Check indicated that it would be drawn on an account belonging to a Texas business. However, “[m]ere knowledge that the ‘brunt’ of the alleged harm would be felt— or have effects—in the forum state is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.” Searcy, 496 S.W.3d at 68-69; see also Myers v. Emery, 697 S.W.2d 26, 32 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, no writ) (<HOLDING>). To support its assertion that Zabel
holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding no jurisdiction over nonresident customer where contract was solicited negotiated and consummated in oklahoma for billboards to be built in texas and erected in oklahoma payments were made to texas and defendant would not earn a profit from texas and had no other contact with texas holding that oklahoma law firms receipt and deposit of texas clients payments drawn on a texas bank were fortuitous and thus insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction against firm in texas state court holding there was no general jurisdiction even though defendant sent  its chief executive officer to texas for a contract negotiation session accepted into its bank account checks drawn on a bank in texas purchased 4 million of goods and equipment from a company in texas and sent employees to texas for training and technical consultation 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