MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER In our increasingly globalized economy, many cases present exquisitely complex questions of personal jurisdiction. This is not one of them. Defendant NexTech AR Solutions Corp. (“defendant” or “NexTech”), a Canadian entity which, until the filing of this action, maintained an executive office for its the CEO in the State of New York (from which he negotiated, in part, the subscription purchase agreement that is the subject of the instant dispute), and which captioned many of its corporate press releases as emanating from “New York and Toronto,” contends that it lacked sufficient contacts with New York to be haled into court here. Thus, defendant seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket Entry (“DE”) 15. Plaintiffs Jim Evans and Dave Franklin (“plaintiffs”), two investors from Georgia who claim to have been mistreated by NexTech, justifiably dispute this claim. DE 16, 18. The relevant facts presented on this motion prove overwhelming. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that NextTech is a Canadian corporation that does business in the U.S. and maintains offices in New York, Texas and California. DE 1 3. Plaintiffs further allege that NexTech’s CEO “operates the Company” from a Suffolk County, New York office, and that he resides in this district. Id. 5. Part of the dispute involves an email sent directly from the CEO in the New York office to the plaintiffs concerning the redemption of the warrants subject to the subscription agreement. Id. 15. The complaint further details actions taken by the CEO beginning in December 2019 that led to the instant litigation. Id.