is often, but not always, expressed as a percentage. Id. at 824. Interest, the court said, was broad enough to include non-percentage based charges. Although the court acknowledged that words contained in federal statutes are generally defined by federal common law, it determined that reference to state law was often appropriate. Resort to uniquely federal definitions is not, however, automatic. “Congress sometimes intends that a statutory term be given content by the application of state law.” Mississippi Band, 490 U.S. at 43, 109 S.Ct. at 1605. In such instances, a federal court may properly use state law to fill the interstices within a federal legislative scheme. See, e.g., Kamen [v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90, 107-09, 111 S.Ct. 1711, 1722-23, 114 L.Ed.2d 152 (1991) ] (<HOLDING>); Mississippi Band, 490 U.S. at 47-53, 109
holding that under north carolina law a corporate parent cannot be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless the corporate structure is a sham holding it proper to borrow a definition from state corporate law holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract