of Ontario law is contrary to Michigan’s fundamental policy in favor of successor liability. The fact, however, that a different result might be achieved if the law of the chosen forum is applied does not suffice to show that the foreign law is repugnant to a fundamental policy of the forum state. See Banek, 6 F.3d at 363. If the situation were otherwise, and foreign law could automatically be ignored whenever it differed from the law of the forum state, then the entire body of law relating to conflicts would be rendered meaningless. The cases cited by Johnson in support of his assertion that forum law is frequently applied to questions involving successor liability are either distinguishable or not on point. See, e.g., Travis v. Harris Corp., 565 F.2d 443, 446 (7th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); Mahne v. Ford Motor Co., 900 F.2d 83, 85-86
holding in a successor liability case that questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract were properly governed under forum law holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision holding that traditional commercial contract provided for termination at will under arkansas law holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state