Here is a post from the Delaware Business Litigation Report that flags a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware which found personal jurisdiction based on aspects of a transaction that created ties to Delaware. See G & G LLC v. White. Read opinion here. The post included the following summary:
Plaintiff pointed to numerous instances where the Utah corporation, the Delaware corporation, their counsel, the directors/officers of the Delaware corporation (who were appointed by the investor defendants), and the investor defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of the merger and/or made misrepresentations regarding the continuing status of the corporation as a Utah corporation. Taking the allegations as true, the Court found that the actions of the investor defendants and the directors they appointed was sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over them.
The opinion discusses the application of the Delaware long-arm statute in the context of both general and specific jurisdiction and cites to the many federal decisions in Delaware that have applied the statute. Interestingly, the opinion does not cite to the recent Chancery Court opinion that found personal jurisdiction based on the actions of an outside attorney of a corporation in connection with aspects of a transaction that created ties to Delaware. See Sample v. Morgan summarized here.
Notably, however, the District Court did cite to the recent Troy Corp. v. Schoon Chancery decision, summarized here, that also dealt with a forum selection clause that was not artfully drafted. In particular, even though one of the clauses quoted by the court gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Delaware Chancery Court, the District Court for the District of Delaware could not rely of that provision to impose jurisdiction in federal court simply because it was also in Delaware.