did not substantially comply with the requirements of” Va.Code § 17.734. Given the disposition of this matter, it is unnecessary to reach or decide whether either MTC’s original or amended appraisal notices substantially complied with the VSCA. 12 . The parties correctly agree that Virginia substantive law governs here. See Erie ivate Corporations § 3635 (2006) ("When a corporation is created or formed under a general corporation law, its charters consists of the law under which it is,organized and the articles or certificate of incorporation adopted or issue pursuant to that law.... Every pertinent provision of the constitution and statutes of the corporation's creation is impliedly written into the charter.”); Knights of Pythias v. Weller, 93 Va. 605, 613, 25 S.E. 891 (1896) (<HOLDING>); Kaplan v. Block, 183 Va. 327, 333-34, 31
holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities holding that while a state statute granted a foreign corporation the rights and privileges enjoyed by domestic corporations it did not transform such corporations into domestic or resident corporations recognizing a cause of action against a corporations directors brought by a creditor for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the corporations financial condition holding that general laws affecting corporations form essential parts of the charters of the corporations as though copied into them recognizing that when the corporations management or its shareholders are deadlocked with respect to a particular issue courts have realigned such corporations as party plaintiffs