be a valuable stock certificate. Because Alabama substantive law applies to this diversity action, our task is to divine what an Alabama court would likely hold if presented with this case. Goodwin v. George Fischer Foundry Sys., Inc., 769 F.2d 708, 711 (11th Cir.1985); cf. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Etowah Bank, 288 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir.2002) (applying Georgia substantive law to a diversity dispute concerning coverage under a financial institution bond). To do so, we look first to whether Alabama courts have spoken on the issue. While there does not appear to be any precedent precisely on point, an Alabama Supreme Court opinion cites favorably to a Sixth Circuit case that is instructive. See Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Bank of Commerce, 285 Ala. 580, 234 So.2d 871, 877 (1970) (<HOLDING>). In First National Bank of Memphis, the Sixth
holding that loss to bank occurred without regard to its possible remedies when its funds in fact were diverted  through the fraud and dishonesty of its treasurer and that the bank could sue on its bond without proof that it had then sustained some actual defined loss not merely nominal as the result of the transaction in question holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank holding that a loss sustained by a bank in reliance on fabricated invoices was not covered by the banks bond citing first national bank of memphis v aetna casualty  surety co 309 f2d 702 6th cir1962 as support for its holding holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank