interest, but little practical significance”); Scoles et al., Conflict of Laws, § 23.10, at 1117 (3d ed. 2000 & Supp.2001) ("A federal common law test for piercing (in claims based on federal law) has not been adopted. The federal court either adopts the state test or frequently finds that there is no conflict between the laws of potentially interested states: there is thus no need to add another, a federal layer.”). But cf. Thomas, 39 F.3d at 504 n. 16 (noting a difference between the Fourth Circuit's federal standard and other state standards). Thus, this court could apply federal or state law. The court assumes it would apply North Carolina's choice-of-law rules if it applied state law. Cf. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (<HOLDING>). Under North Carolina’s choice-of-law rules,
holding that a federal court with diversity jurisdiction must apply the choiceoflaw rules of the state in which the federal court sits holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding in a diversity matter that federal courts must apply the forum states choiceoflaw rules in deciding what law governs a statelawbased claim holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply its forum states choice of law rules holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases